aiqbench analysis
This research introduces a decision-theory framework to address the misalignment between an LLM's perceived need for tool calls and their actual utility, particularly in web search scenarios. By training lightweight estimators on model hidden states, the approach enables controllers that optimize tool invocation strategies and improve task performance across various open-source models. The findings highlight a critical optimization opportunity for agentic systems: reducing redundant or harmful tool calls through better internal state interpretation.
To Call or Not to Call: A Framework to Assess and Optimize LLM Tool Calling
arXiv:2605.00737v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities. However, tool use is not always beneficial; some calls may be redundant or even harmful. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. This decision is particularly challenging for web search tools, where the benefits of external information depend on the model's internal knowledge and its ability to integrate potentially noisy tool responses. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to evaluate web search tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility from an optimal allocation of tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open and one closed-source frontier models under two harnesses, one conditioning on only the current turn and its search results, the other on the full execution traces, across four web-search tools and three tasks. In every setting, we find that a model's perceived need and utility are frequently misaligned with the true need and utility. Building on this framework, we train lightweight estimators of need and utility from the models' hidden states. These estimators drive simple controllers that improve decision quality and yield stronger task performance than the self-perceived baseline for most of the open-source models.
Abstract:Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities. However, tool use is not always beneficial; some calls may be redundant or even harmful. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. This decision is particularly challenging for web search tools, where the benefits of external information depend on the model's internal knowledge and its ability to integrate potentially noisy tool responses. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to evaluate web search tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility from an optimal allocation of tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open and one closed-source frontier models under two harnesses, one conditioning on only the current turn and its search results, the other on the full execution traces, across four web-search tools and three tasks. In every setting, we find that a model's perceived need and utility are frequently misaligned with the true need and utility. Building on this framework, we train lightweight estimators of need and utility from the models' hidden states. These estimators drive simple controllers that improve decision quality and yield stronger task performance than the self-perceived baseline for most of the open-source models.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2605.00737 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.00737v2 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.00737 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 330 words
Related coverage
A Probabilistic Framework for Learnable Optimization Algorithms
arXiv · Aug 17, 2026
ILP-BO: Integer Linear Programming-Based Black-Box Optimization
arXiv · Sep 30, 2026
Hyperloom: A Multi-Agent Harness for Autonomous Inference Optimization on AMD GPUs
AMD · Sep 21, 2026

Stanford framework improves qubit gate count
Quantum Zeitgeist · Oct 27, 2026