REVIEW 2 cited by
Tools Fail: Detecting Silent Errors in Faulty Tools
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Tools Fail: Detecting Silent Errors in Faulty Tools
read the original abstract
Tools have become a mainstay of LLMs, allowing them to retrieve knowledge not in their weights, to perform tasks on the web, and even to control robots. However, most ontologies and surveys of tool-use have assumed the core challenge for LLMs is choosing the tool. Instead, we introduce a framework for tools more broadly which guides us to explore a model's ability to detect "silent" tool errors, and reflect on how to plan. This more directly aligns with the increasingly popular use of models as tools. We provide an initial approach to failure recovery with promising results both on a controlled calculator setting and embodied agent planning.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
SARC-DQ: Runtime Data-Quality Gating for Agentic AI: Silent Evidence Defects, the Incompetence Shield, and Downstream-Only Remediation
Across four model tiers spanning ~15x in inference price, agents silently converted invisible metadata-borne defects into costly actions at a flat ~60% rate, and only a metadata-aware pre-action gate — not scale — rec...
-
How Can Input Reformulation Improve Tool Usage Accuracy in a Complex Dynamic Environment? A Study on $\tau$-bench
IRMA reformulates tool-agent inputs with memory, domain constraints, and tool suggestions, and reports improved tau-bench pass^5 reliability over ReAct, function calling, and self-reflection.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.