pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.13547 · v2 · pith:MEBLKTBRnew · submitted 2024-11-20 · 💻 cs.SE · cs.AI

ToolScan: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs

classification 💻 cs.SE cs.AI
keywords llmsbenchmarkerrortoolscanpatternsenvironmentserrorsevaluating
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) is one of the most critical aspects of building a performant compound AI system. Since the output from LLMs propagate to downstream steps, identifying LLM errors is crucial to system performance. A common task for LLMs in AI systems is tool use. While there are several benchmark environments for evaluating LLMs on this task, they typically only give a success rate without any explanation of the failure cases. To solve this problem, we introduce TOOLSCAN, a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. Our benchmark data set comprises of queries from diverse environments that can be used to test for the presence of seven newly characterized error patterns. Using TOOLSCAN, we show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use these insights from TOOLSCAN to guide their error mitigation strategies.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. AgentFloor: How Far Up the tool use Ladder Can Small Open-Weight Models Go?

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Small open-weight models match GPT-5 on routine agent tool-use tasks but lag on long-horizon planning, supporting tiered routing to reduce costs in agentic systems.

  2. Bounded Autonomy for Enterprise AI: Typed Action Contracts and Consumer-Side Execution

    cs.SE 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    Bounded autonomy using typed action contracts and consumer-side execution lets LLMs safely operate enterprise systems, achieving 23 of 25 tasks with zero unsafe executions versus 17 for unconstrained AI across 25 trials.