Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

ToolFuzz -- Automated Agent Tool Testing

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

arxiv 2503.04479 v3 pith:QQYQSHEV submitted 2025-03-06 cs.AI cs.SE

classification cs.AIcs.SE
keywords tooltoolfuzzagentagentsapproachesdocumentationerrorstesting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Model (LLM) Agents leverage the advanced reasoning capabilities of LLMs in real-world applications. To interface with an environment, these agents often rely on tools, such as web search or database APIs. As the agent provides the LLM with tool documentation along the user query, the completeness and correctness of this documentation is critical. However, tool documentation is often over-, under-, or ill-specified, impeding the agent's accuracy. Standard software testing approaches struggle to identify these errors as they are expressed in natural language. Thus, despite its importance, there currently exists no automated method to test the tool documentation for agents. To address this issue, we present ToolFuzz, the first method for automated testing of tool documentations. ToolFuzz is designed to discover two types of errors: (1) user queries leading to tool runtime errors and (2) user queries that lead to incorrect agent responses. ToolFuzz can generate a large and diverse set of natural inputs, effectively finding tool description errors at a low false positive rate. Further, we present two straightforward prompt-engineering approaches. We evaluate all three tool testing approaches on 32 common LangChain tools and 35 newly created custom tools and 2 novel benchmarks to further strengthen the assessment. We find that many publicly available tools suffer from underspecification. Specifically, we show that ToolFuzz identifies 20x more erroneous inputs compared to the prompt-engineering approaches, making it a key component for building reliable AI agents.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. LogicHunter: Testing LLM Agent Frameworks with an Agentic Oracle

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    LogicHunter combines specification-driven test generation with a ReAct-based agentic oracle to discover 40 previously unknown bugs in LangChain, LlamaIndex, and CrewAI, achieving 91.17% oracle precision.

  2. Open, Reliable, and Collective: A Community-Driven Framework for Tool-Using AI Agents

    cs.AI 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A community-maintained, schema-standardized toolbox with continuous intrinsic-tool evaluation yields 6–22% relative gains over a curated baseline across multiple LLM agent architectures.

  3. Tangent: An Empirical Study of Testing Practices for LLM-Based Agent Applications

    cs.SE 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An analysis of 2,572 tests and 10 practitioner interviews shows that agent testing is mostly unit-level, mock-heavy, and built on simple example data.

Pith tools