Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

RIMRULE turns execution failures into compact, interpretable rules that, injected at inference time, improve LLM tool use on seen and unseen tools and transfer across models without weight updates.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:07 UTC pith:N6RSVKSN

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful neuro-symbolic adaptation method whose headline claim outruns its own Table 3. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.00086 v3 pith:N6RSVKSN submitted 2025-12-31 cs.CL

RIMRULE: Improving Tool-Using Language Agents via MDL-Guided Rule Learning

Xiang Gao , Yuguang Yao , Qi Zhang , Kaiwen Dong , Avinash Baidya , Ruocheng Guo , Hilaf Hasson , Kamalika Das This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords rule learningtool-use agentsminimum description lengthinference-time adaptationneuro-symbolicexplanation-based learningprompt injectionfailure traces
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper is trying to establish a fourth way to adapt LLMs to unfamiliar tools: instead of replaying examples, tuning prompts, or updating weights, an agent learns compact rules from its own failures and reads those rules at inference time. The proposed system, RIMRULE, generates candidate if–then rules by comparing failed execution traces with ground-truth traces, then prunes and generalizes them under a Minimum Description Length objective so that a small library covers many failures. Injecting the retrieved rules into the prompt improves accuracy on both random held-out queries and queries involving tools never seen in training, outperforms few-shot prompting and global prompt optimization on the tested benchmarks, and adds gains on top of finetuning. Because each rule is stored in both natural language and a symbolic form, rules learned from one LLM can be reused by other LLMs, including long-reasoning models, without retraining. A sympathetic reader should care because this points to an interpretable, portable, and auditable alternative to weight-based adaptation.

Core claim

The central claim is that a small set of LLM-written, MDL-trimmed rules—stored in both natural language and a fixed symbolic form—can be retrieved and injected into the prompt to fix systematic tool-use errors. The authors demonstrate this on two tool-use benchmarks: accuracy improves on random held-out queries and on queries whose tools never appear in training; rules learned from one LLM improve others in both weak-to-strong and strong-to-weak directions; and adding rules to finetuned models yields further gains, most visibly on unseen tools. The authors present this as evidence for a distinct adaptation paradigm: instead of adapting by replaying examples or changing weights, the agent ada

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symbolic rule: an if–then statement compiled into five fixed fields—domain, qualifier, action, strength, tool category—drawn from a closed vocabulary. The pipeline has two stages. In the first, an LLM compares each failed execution trace against its ground-truth trace, isolates a root-cause reasoning error (decomposition, tool selection, or argument construction), and proposes an atomic, generalized rule; predictive and linguistic checks filter the proposals. In the second, the candidate pool is consolidated by minimizing the MDL objective MDL(H)=L(H)+L(D|H): L(H) penalizes total symbolic rule length, and L(D|H) rewards rules that correct observed failures, so

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline requires every training query to come with a ground-truth execution trace (or equivalent failure signal), because rules are induced by comparing the agent's wrong trace with the correct one; the paper's limitations section acknowledges this dependency.

What would settle it

Remove the ground-truth trace from each training instance and train only on binary success/failure labels or error messages; if gains on unseen tools vanish, the central claim depends on trace supervision rather than on MDL-guided rule learning.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • In the reported runs, the consolidated rule library lifts test-rand accuracy by about 4.6–6.5 points and test-unseen accuracy by about 3.5–8.0 points over the zero-shot agent.
  • Rules learned from either Llama3.2 or GPT-4o improve all four tested models, including a long-reasoning model, on both benchmarks.
  • MDL-guided consolidation beats a prompt-based merger, and symbolic retrieval beats natural-language retrieval, so both design choices are load-bearing.
  • Adding rule injection to finetuned models—both an SFT Llama3.2 and a function-calling GPT-4o—improves accuracy further, especially on unseen tools.
  • With only 90 training samples, four learned rules raise test-rand accuracy from 55.2% to 62.1% and test-unseen accuracy from 46.0% to 60.0%.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit: a rule library is a model-independent asset that can be versioned, audited, and shared between teams, unlike finetuned weights.
  • A testable weakening: replace ground-truth traces with the model's own corrected rollouts or reward-only feedback; if MDL consolidation still produces useful rules, the paradigm extends to settings where traces are unavailable.
  • The MDL objective currently treats each failure as either corrected or not; weighting failures by severity or frequency, or scoring partial corrections, would change which rules survive and could matter for high-stakes tool use.
  • Since rules are injected as natural language, the host model's instruction-following sets the ceiling; one could test whether the same library yields larger gains on models explicitly trained to obey structured rules.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. RimRule learns compact, interpretable if–then rules from failure traces of tool-use agents. The pipeline has four stages: (1) candidate rules are generated by an LLM from pairs of incorrect and ground-truth execution traces, filtered by a predictive check on the same query and a linguistic check; (2) rules are compiled into a fixed-field symbolic representation with closed vocabularies; (3) a greedy MDL-based consolidation prunes and generalizes rules; (4) at inference, relevant rules are retrieved symbolically and injected into the prompt. Experiments on ToolHop and BFCL report gains over zero-shot, few-shot ICL, and SEE prompt optimization, and show that adding rules to SFT or function-calling models helps. The paper also reports cross-LLM transfer: rules learned from Llama3.2 or GPT-4o are applied to other models, including the long-reasoning model O1.

Significance. The central idea — distilling reusable, human-readable rules from failures and injecting them at inference time — is attractive and distinct from both prompting and fine-tuning. The dual natural-language/symbolic representation, the MDL consolidation objective, and the ablations on retrieval and consolidation strategies are genuine strengths. If the consistency and portability claims were supported by rigorous statistics and well-defined held-out splits, this would be a meaningful contribution to LLM adaptation. As presented, however, the evidence does not establish the headline claims: one table directly contradicts the word 'consistently,' and the evaluation pipeline uses the failure set for in-sample selection at multiple stages.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 3] The headline claim 'consistently improves performance' and the portability claim 'rules learned from one LLM can be reused to improve others' are directly contradicted by Table 3. For rules learned from Llama3.2 and applied to GPT-4o on ToolHop test-rand, accuracy drops from 58.1±1.4 to 57.4±1.4. Since no paired significance tests, confidence intervals, or per-query win rates are reported, the word 'consistently' is not justified by the evidence. Moreover, Table 3 evaluates only test-rand, so the transfer experiments do not test the second half of the claim (improvement on queries with unseen tools). Please replace 'consistently' with a quantified claim and analyze the negative cell in detail.
  2. [§2.1.2 and §2.2.2] The rule-learning pipeline uses the failure set at multiple stages: the predictive check in §2.1.2 requires a rule to improve performance on the same query that generated it, and the regularization strength α is chosen in §2.2.2 (paragraph 'Choice of α') to maximize end-to-end accuracy on the failure set after consolidation. Although final evaluation is on held-out splits, this is still in-sample model selection for rule filtering and hyperparameter choice, and it can make the reported gains optimistic. The manuscript should report a separate validation split (or cross-validation) for rule selection and α, and should state how much of the gain survives when rules are selected without access to the failure labels of the queries used for generation.
  3. [§3.1, Table 1] The construction of the test-unseen split is under-specified. The paper states that test-unseen contains 'queries with tools not seen during training,' but it does not describe how this is enforced: are the tool names and schemas disjoint from the training tools? Are the test-unseen queries structurally similar to training queries? Since a central claim is improvement on unseen tools, the split definition is load-bearing and must be given precisely, including any preprocessing or deduplication steps.
  4. [§4.5, Table 4] The comparison with prompting baselines lacks statistical support. For example, on ToolHop test-rand, RimRule achieves 31.1±1.3 while few-shot ICL achieves 29.9±1.4; on BFCL test-rand, 56.6±1.2 vs. 54.5±0.9. Given the reported standard deviations, these differences may be within noise. The paper should report paired significance tests (e.g., bootstrap or permutation tests over queries), confidence intervals, or effect sizes for all main comparisons, especially where the claimed improvement is small relative to the variance.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2 (Algorithm cross-reference)] The text says 'Table 1 provides pseudocode,' but the pseudocode is presented as Algorithm 1, while Table 1 in the experiments shows dataset statistics. The cross-reference needs to be corrected.
  2. [§2] Typo: 'intepretable rules' should be 'interpretable rules.'
  3. [§2.3 / §3] The retrieval count top-k and the chosen value of α are never reported. Please include the selected hyperparameter values and a sensitivity analysis for top-k, since retrieval quality is central to the method.
  4. [§4.4] 'multi turn basesplit' appears to be a typo for 'Multi-Turn-Base split.'
  5. [Table 3] The header 'T oolHop' has a stray space; also 'O1' and 'o1-mini' are used inconsistently in the text.
  6. [§2.2.2] The discussion of the degenerate case ('L(D|H) could be minimized by correcting no failures') is asserted to be unreachable in practice. This is plausible because the greedy search starts from a high-performing set, but the reasoning should be stated more carefully, since a sufficiently large α could in principle make removing all rules optimal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: rules are induced from training failures and evaluated on held-out test-rand/test-unseen splits; the negative Table 3 cell is an empirical-evidence issue, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

RimRule's derivation chain is not circular. Training consumes labeled failure traces (x,S,τ−,τ*) (Section 2.1.1), generates candidate rules by comparing τ− and τ*, filters them with an in-sample predictive check on the originating query, and consolidates under an MDL objective using L(D|H) over the training failure set. All of these are legitimate training-set procedures. The reported claims are then evaluated on disjoint splits: 'test-rand, a random in-distribution split, and test-unseen, a held-out split containing queries with tools not seen during training' (Section 3.1, Tables 1-3). The MDL objective and α selection (Section 2.2.2, 'best end-to-end accuracy after consolidation on the failure set') do not embed the test-rand/test-unseen results. The paper's only notable evidence issue is the Table 3 GPT-4o/ToolHop cell (58.1→57.4), which undercuts the word 'consistently,' but that is an empirical-significance concern, not circular reasoning. Self-citations (SEE baseline, Cui et al. 2025; related-work contrastive ICL and reasoning distillation) are background or baselines and are not load-bearing premises. No equation reduces to its inputs by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a held-out prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The method relies on the availability of ground-truth traces, the reliability of LLM rule generation, the suitability of the Bernoulli MDL objective, and the adequacy of greedy consolidation—each an explicit or implicit modeling assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (MDL regularization strength) = not reported; selected on failure set
    Controls model cost in the MDL objective; chosen to maximize end-to-end accuracy on the failure set (Section 2.2.2).
  • top-k retrieval count = not reported
    Number of rules injected per query during inference (Section 2.3.2); no value or tuning procedure is given.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth execution traces are available for every training failure.
    Training instance defined as (x,S,τ−,τ*) in Section 2.1.1; Section 7 explicitly assumes access to failure signals or traces.
  • domain assumption An LLM can propose generalizable, atomic rules from a single failure trace that pass the predictive check.
    Section 2.1.2 relies on LLM-Propose-Rule and a predictive check on the same query; if proposals are overfit to the originating instance, cross-sample gains vanish.
  • domain assumption The Bernoulli/plug-in MDL data cost correctly encodes rule utility.
    Section 2.2.2 models correction outcomes as i.i.d. Bernoulli; failure cases may not be independent, but the objective treats them as such.
  • domain assumption Greedy pruning and generalization reaches a near-optimal rule library.
    Section 2.2.2 uses local edits and states there is no global optimality guarantee; empirical effectiveness is assumed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15488 in / 9789 out tokens · 96785 ms · 2026-08-03T13:07:33.975401+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RIMRULE: Improving Tool-Using Language Agents via MDL-Guided Rule Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N6RSVKSN

@misc{pith2026260100086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RIMRULE: Improving Tool-Using Language Agents via MDL-Guided Rule Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N6RSVKSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.00086}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) often struggle to use tools reliably in domain-specific settings, where APIs may be idiosyncratic, under-documented, or tailored to private workflows. This highlights the need for effective adaptation to task-specific tools. We propose RIMRULE, a neuro-symbolic approach for LLM adaptation based on dynamic rule injection. Compact, interpretable rules are distilled from failure traces and injected into the prompt during inference to improve task performance. These rules are proposed by the LLM itself and consolidated using a Minimum Description Length (MDL) objective that favors generality and conciseness. Each rule is stored in both natural language and a structured symbolic form, supporting efficient retrieval at inference time. Experiments on tool-use benchmarks show that this approach improves accuracy on both seen and unseen tools without modifying LLM weights. It outperforms prompting-based adaptation methods and complements finetuning. Moreover, rules learned from one LLM can be reused to improve others, including long reasoning LLMs, highlighting the portability of symbolic knowledge across architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00086 by Avinash Baidya, Hilaf Hasson, Kaiwen Dong, Kamalika Das, Qi Zhang, Ruocheng Guo, Xiang Gao, Yuguang Yao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Learning reusable and interpretable rules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The framework of our MDL-guided rule learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Security Considerations for Multi-agent Systems

    cs.CR 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    No existing AI security framework covers a majority of the 193 identified multi-agent system threats in any category, with OWASP Agentic Security Initiative achieving the highest overall coverage at 65.3%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The user query [INSERT USER QUERY]

  2. [2]

    The available tools [INSERT TOOL SCHEMA JSON]

  3. [3]

    InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Gemini Team and Others. 2023. Gemini: A fam- ily of highly capable multimodal models.arXiv preprint. Mudit Verma, Siddhant Bhambri, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2024. On the brittle foundations of react prompting for agentic large lan...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Junjie Ye, Zhengyin Du, Xuesong Yao, Weijian Lin, Yufei Xu, Zehui Chen, Zaiyuan Wang, Sin- ing Zhu, Zhiheng Xi, Siyu Yuan, and 1 others

  5. [5]

    domain": [

    Return the complete updated vocabulary Return JSON with all categories (existing + new): { "domain": ["existing_domains", "new_domains_if_any"], "qualifier": ["existing_qualifiers", "new_qualifiers_if_any"], "action": ["existing_actions", "new_actions_if_any"], "strength": ["existing_strengths", "new_strengths_if_any"], "tool_category": ["existing_tool_ca...

  6. [6]

    Pei Zhou, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Xinyun Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Quoc V Le, Ed Chi, Denny Zhou, Swaroop Mishra, and Huaixiu Steven Zheng

    Ruag: Learned-rule-augmented genera- tion for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03349. Pei Zhou, Jay Pujara, Xiang Ren, Xinyun Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Quoc V Le, Ed Chi, Denny Zhou, Swaroop Mishra, and Huaixiu Steven Zheng. 2024. Self-discover: Large language models self-compose reasoning structures.Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    If a query involves determining the ancestry of a person based on a specific familial relationship (e.g., maternal grandfather), then decompose the task into subtasks that sequentially query each familial link (e.g., mother, mother’s father) and ensure intermediate results are used to refine subsequent subtasks. if (domain=HIERARCHICAL_RELATIONSHIPS and q...

  8. [8]

    If a query involves identifying an entity indirectly related to another (e.g., the founder of a political party identified in a previous step), then ensure that intermediate subtasks chain outputs logically by querying the relationship explicitly rather than assuming associations provided in the query. if (domain=INDIRECT_ENTITY_IDENTIFICATION and qualifi...

  9. [9]

    The incorrect trace [INSERT TOOL AGENT TRACE]

  10. [10]

    new_rule

    The groundtruth trace [INSERT GROUNDTRUTH TRACE] Your task is to identify reasoning errors by comparing the traces. Check: - Were subtasks identified correctly? - Were the correct tools selected? - Were the arguments constructed correctly? Guidelines for rule generation: - Only generate rules for reasoning errors - Identify root causes, not superficial fi...

  11. [11]

    Review the current vocabulary above

  12. [12]

    Analyze the new rules to identify any missing categories

  13. [13]

    Add new categories if needed, but avoid duplicates

  14. [14]

    Keep existing categories that are still relevant

  15. [16]

    If the user query involves identifying a complex relationship (e.g., step-relative) and the available tools do not directly support the requested relationship type, then decompose the query into intermediate subtasks that progressively resolve the relationship through simpler, directly supported relationship types. if (domain=RELATIONSHIP_RESOLUTION and q...

  16. [17]

    if (domain=QUERY_DECOMPOSITION and qualifier=[MULTI_STEP_REASONING, DERIVATIVE_ENTITY]) then (action=[DECOMPOSE_QUERY, TRANSFORM_INPUT]) with strength=MANDATORY

    If a query involves determining a property of an object derived from intermediate steps (e.g., counting, analyzing, or transforming an attribute of an entity), then the decomposition must explicitly include a subtask to apply the appropriate process or transformation to the derived attribute. if (domain=QUERY_DECOMPOSITION and qualifier=[MULTI_STEP_REASON...

  17. [18]

    if (domain=TOOL_ARGUMENT_VALIDATION and qualifier=[INCOMPLETE_DATA_REFINEMENT]) then (action=[REFINE_INPUT_ARGUMENTS, HANDLE_INCOMPLETE_DATA]) with strength=RECOMMENDED

    If a query fails due to insufficient or incomplete data returned by a tool, then refine the input arguments by including optional parameters that provide additional context (e.g., variants of names, time periods, regions, or other applicable constraints) to improve data retrieval accuracy. if (domain=TOOL_ARGUMENT_VALIDATION and qualifier=[INCOMPLETE_DATA...

  18. [19]

    If a query involves determining an attribute (e.g., date, location, event) of an entity that is related to another entity (e.g., family member), then decompose the query to first identify the related entity before attempting to determine its attribute. if (domain=QUERY_DECOMPOSITION and qualifier=[RELATIONSHIP_CHAIN_TRAVERSAL, INTERMEDIATE_ENTITY_IDENTIFI...

  19. [20]

    if (domain=NAME_PROCESSING and qualifier=[NAME_COMPONENT_EXTRACTION]) then (action=[CONSTRUCT_ARGUMENTS, REFINE_INPUT_ARGUMENTS]) with strength=MANDATORY

    If the subtask requires extracting a specific subset of information (e.g., first name from a full name), then construct arguments for the tool to restrict the output to match the requested subset by enabling relevant optional parameters explicitly, while leaving unrelated parameters at their defaults. if (domain=NAME_PROCESSING and qualifier=[NAME_COMPONE...

  20. [21]

    If the user query involves identifying information about a specific familial relationship across multiple generations (e.g., paternal grandfather), then decompose the query such that the familial relationship is resolved directly using tools designed to retrieve genealogical data, without redundantly extracting unrelated immediate relationships. if (domai...

  21. [24]

    If a query involves retrieving information about an individual’s relative, the decomposition must include a subtask to explicitly identify the relative before retrieving specific information about them. if (domain=RELATIONSHIP_RESOLUTION and qualifier=[FAMILIAL_RELATIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP_CHAIN_TRAVERSAL]) then (action=[DECOMPOSE_QUERY, RESOLVE_INTERMEDIAT...

  22. [25]

    If the subtask involves identifying a familial or social relationship between entities, then select a tool designed to query relationships, and do not select a tool designed for extracting name components or parsing names. if (domain=RELATIONSHIP_RESOLUTION and qualifier=[FAMILIAL_RELATIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP_CHAIN_TRAVERSAL]) then (action=[MATCH_TOOL_TO_SU...

  23. [26]

    Use schema validation to confirm that the generated tool name exists before finalizing the response

    If a reasoning process identifies a subtask requiring tool-based execution, then ensure the tool name generated in the output matches exactly with one of the available tools in the schema. Use schema validation to confirm that the generated tool name exists before finalizing the response. if (domain=TRANSPORTATION and qualifier=[SCHEMA_VALIDATION, TOOL_SE...

  24. [27]

    if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT_TOOL_BASED_ON_QUERY]) with strength=MANDATORY

    IF the query involves retrieving general information about an entity, concept, or event that is not explicitly tied to recent updates or temporal relevance, THEN select a tool designed for general web searches instead of a tool specialized for retrieving recent news or updates. if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR])...

  25. [28]

    if (domain=INVENTORY_MANAGEMENT and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT_TOOL_BASED_ON_QUERY]) with strength=MANDATORY

    If the subtask requires checking availability or stock levels for specific product attributes (e.g., sizes, stock count), then select a tool whose schema explicitly supports inventory-related operations, rather than using a tool designed for general product details. if (domain=INVENTORY_MANAGEMENT and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT...

  26. [29]

    if (domain=INVENTORY_MANAGEMENT and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT_TOOL_BASED_ON_QUERY]) with strength=MANDATORY

    If the subtask involves checking the availability of a specific attribute (e.g., size, color, or stock) for a product, then select a tool whose schema explicitly includes functionality for querying availability of attributes rather than retrieving general product details. if (domain=INVENTORY_MANAGEMENT and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[...

  27. [30]

    If a user query explicitly provides a value for a parameter, regardless of whether the parameter has a default value in the schema, prioritize the user-provided value over the default value when constructing arguments. if (domain=DATABASE_MANAGEMENT and qualifier=[USER_QUERY_VALUE_PRIORITY, DEFAULT_VALUE_ASSIGNMENT]) then (action=[PRIORITIZE_USER_VALUE, C...

  28. [31]

    if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT_TOOL_BASED_ON_QUERY]) with strength=MANDATORY

    If the user query explicitly requests understanding, explanation, or help about a functionality, then select a tool designed to provide informational assistance rather than one intended for operational execution. if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT_TOOL_BASED_ON_QUERY]) with strength=MANDATORY

  29. [32]

    Ensure the subtask aligns directly with the tool’s primary function as specified in its schema

    If the intended action is to retrieve information based on user-specified filters or constraints, then select a tool that explicitly supports filtering or constraint-based retrieval in its schema description. Ensure the subtask aligns directly with the tool’s primary function as specified in its schema. if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifi...

  30. [33]

    if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) then (action=[SELECT_TOOL_BASED_ON_QUERY]) with strength=MANDATORY

    If a subtask involves identifying available options or exploring possible choices for a resource (e.g., accommodations, flights, attractions), then select a tool designed for searching or browsing those resources rather than a tool designed for finalizing or reserving them. if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[TOOL_SELECTION_ERROR]) the...

  31. [34]

    If the user query specifies a constraint related to an entity (e.g., actor name, director name, genre, etc.), then construct the corresponding parameter value by directly extracting the entity mentioned in the query, instead of using default or placeholder values. if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[REQUIRED_PARAMETER_FORMATTING, USER_...

  32. [35]

    If a schema explicitly limits valid values for an input parameter to a predefined set, then when constructing arguments, map user preferences to the closest valid value within this set, or default to a neutral option (e.g., no filtering) when the schema disallows explicit preferences. if (domain=GENERAL_INFORMATION_RETRIEVAL and qualifier=[SCHEMA_VALIDATI...

  33. [36]

    For example, if starting a process requires preconditions A, B, and C, verify and satisfy A, B, and C sequentially before initiating the process

    If a subtask involves initiating a system or process with preconditions, then identify and include all required preconditions (e.g., state validations, sequential actions) in the task decomposition, ensuring that they are executed in the correct order prior to invoking the main action. For example, if starting a process requires preconditions A, B, and C,...

  34. [37]

    Ensure each prerequisite subtask is executed and validated before proceeding with the dependent action

    If a user query involves an action that requires specific prerequisites to be met (e.g., a dependency between tasks or a state requirement), decompose the query into subtasks that explicitly address the prerequisites first. Ensure each prerequisite subtask is executed and validated before proceeding with the dependent action. if (domain=PROCESS_MANAGEMENT...

  35. [38]

    Do not reverse these roles, as it will misalign the output with the intended goal

    If the task involves converting a monetary target between two currencies, then ensure the base currency matches the source of the monetary target and the target currency matches the destination specified in the query context. Do not reverse these roles, as it will misalign the output with the intended goal. if (domain=CURRENCY_CONVERSION and qualifier=[CU...

  36. [39]

    Do not attempt to infer the set by piecemeal or localized retrieval from individual components

    If a query requires identifying entities from a complete set (e.g., all available options), then retrieve the comprehensive set explicitly using tools designed for global enumeration before attempting subtasks that depend on specific entities. Do not attempt to infer the set by piecemeal or localized retrieval from individual components. if (domain=ENTITY...

  37. [2023]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sas- try, Amanda Askell, and 1 others

    Qwen technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sas- try, Amanda Askell, and 1 others. 2020. Lan- guage models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877– 1901. Zhongwu Chen, Chengj...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [2024]

    The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783. Peter D. Grunwald. 2007.The Minimum Descrip- tion Length Principle. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Shibo Hao, Tianyang Liu, Zhen Wang, and Zhit- ing Hu. 2023. Toolkengpt: Augmenting frozen language models with massive tools via tool em- beddings.arXiv preprint. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Walli...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  39. [2025]

    Yabo Zhang, Yihan Zeng, Qingyun Li, Zhen Hu, Kavin Han, and Wangmeng Zuo

    Toolhop: A query-driven benchmark for evaluating large language models in multi-hop tool use.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02506. Yabo Zhang, Yihan Zeng, Qingyun Li, Zhen Hu, Kavin Han, and Wangmeng Zuo. 2025. Tool-r1: Sample-efficient reinforcement learning for agen- tic tool use. https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12867. Accessed 2026-01-xx. Yudi Zhang, Pei Xiao, L...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025