arXiv preprint ·
Loud Failures, Quiet Failures: Fault Detection and Recovery in Tool-Using Language Model Agents
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Tool-using agents are usually scored on whether they finish a task while the tools work. Deployments are less forgiving: services time out, endpoints disappear, parameter names change, and results come back well formed but wrong. Prior work has shown that language models over-trust tool outputs that fail silently; we ask how that over-trust plays out across the stages of failure handling in multi-turn agents. Wrapping the executable environments of an established function-calling benchmark in a fault-injection layer, we inject one of four typed faults at a controlled point in the trajectory and record whether the agent notices, changes plan, recovers the task, or repeats itself. Six models from three families, half of them reasoning variants, ran 1,920 trials over 24 multi-step tasks. Agents treat a failure as a problem in 91.3% of trials when the tool returns an explicit error, but in 58.8% of trials when it returns a plausible wrong value, against a 26.8% rate of reporting problems when nothing was wrong. Reasoning models are not better placed: paired against instruct siblings, they notice less (-9.3 points, p < .001) and change plan more (+10.4 points, p < .001), and recovery is unchanged (p = .512). Because agents are stochastic, two fault-free runs of the same task end in the same state only 63.3% of the time; against that baseline, only a missing tool clearly lowers recovery (39.9%), while timeouts, schema drift, and corruption stay within run-to-run variation. After a fault, agents return to the same tool three or more times in a row in up to 22.2% of trials, though strictly identical repeats are rare. A prompt line asking the agent to check each result did not move detection. Agents respond to the error channel rather than to the content of what a tool returns, so failures that stay inside the expected format pass through.
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
The Winner's Curse in LLM Self-Improvement Loops: Selection Noise, Lock-in, and Acceptance Rules
Mid-Training Language Models on Raw Video
Adversarial Images Hijack Web Agents from Visual Grounding to Browser Execution
Intent Graph: Navigating the Analytical Reasoning Space for Exploratory Data Analysis
We Query, Therefore We Compute: On Oracle Computation beyond the Machine, with an Application to Agents
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.