arXiv preprint ·
Agents Trust Tools Too Much: Measuring Reliance on Unreliable Tools
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Existing evaluations of tool-using agents primarily measure whether an agent can successfully complete diverse tasks with tools. These evaluations generally assume that tools return reliable information. However, tool returns in real-world systems can be plausible yet incorrect. We investigate how agents respond to unreliable tool returns by evaluating fourteen LLMs using three tools-web search, LLM sub-agent delegation, and code execution. For each tool, we corrupt its returns and measure whether agents adopt the corrupted content in their final answers. Agents exhibit high levels of overtrust across all three settings: the mean adoption rate exceeds one third for every tool and reaches 68.0% for web search. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals a particularly concerning failure mode: agents often recognize conflicts and even recover the correct answer internally, yet present only the corrupted answer without warning the user. To mitigate agents' overtrust in tool returns, we intervene at three levels: prompting by the user, metadata from the tool provider, and post-training by the agent builder. Although some interventions help for particular models or tools, none consistently mitigates overtrust across tools. These findings identify overtrust in unreliable tools as a serious and persistent failure mode, motivating evaluations and interventions that enable agents to validate tool outputs and transparently communicate unresolved conflicts.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Global to Local: Topology-Preserving Adaptive Graph Pooling via Granular-Ball
Diffs vs. Whole Files: An Empirical Comparison of Iterative Edit-Based and Direct Generation for Flutter/Dart Code Models
A Tree-based RAG Framework for Evidence-Intensive QA via Adaptive Planning and Topology-Aware Evidence Gathering
Distilling Vision-Language Models for On-Device Fire Understanding
Language models judge war differently when tested for alignment
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.