aiqbench analysis
This arXiv paper introduces a benchmark for tool-using AI agents that varies one pressure at a time (tool catalog, visible menu, workflow, or record encoding) under fixed harness budgets. Its main finding is that agent scores depend heavily on harness settings such as completion caps, so results from different evaluation setups may not be directly comparable. Readers evaluating agents should check the harness budgets behind any reported success rate.
ToolBottleneckBench: Measuring Tool-Agent Performance under Controlled Pressures and Fixed Harness Budgets
arXiv:2610.21098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The success score of a tool agent reflects both its model and the budgets of the harness that runs it. We present ToolBottleneckBench, a benchmark that measures tool-agent performance under controlled pressures and fixed harness budgets. Synthetic enterprise tasks stay fixed while one pressure varies: the registered tool catalog, the visible tool menu, the certified workflow, or the encoding of returned records. An exact grader records the first unmet obligation of each failed episode and the harness limit, if any, that ended it. Across 21 model and harness configurations, the visible menu is the only one of the three pressures that act on the model with a large penalty, and this penalty tracks truncation at the completion cap. Raising the cap sixteenfold removes most of the penalty in the truncation-heavy configurations. Most failures end at a harness limit, and the failure record identifies the assigned pressure no more reliably than a count of tool calls. The repairs that help change which tools reach the model or who issues the calls, and only two repairs, neither improving model behavior, beat every configuration switch. We recommend reporting pressure effects with the harness budgets under which they were measured. We release the benchmark at https://github.com/zichuanxu/tool-bottleneck-bench.
Abstract:The success score of a tool agent reflects both its model and the budgets of the harness that runs it. We present ToolBottleneckBench, a benchmark that measures tool-agent performance under controlled pressures and fixed harness budgets. Synthetic enterprise tasks stay fixed while one pressure varies: the registered tool catalog, the visible tool menu, the certified workflow, or the encoding of returned records. An exact grader records the first unmet obligation of each failed episode and the harness limit, if any, that ended it. Across 21 model and harness configurations, the visible menu is the only one of the three pressures that act on the model with a large penalty, and this penalty tracks truncation at the completion cap. Raising the cap sixteenfold removes most of the penalty in the truncation-heavy configurations. Most failures end at a harness limit, and the failure record identifies the assigned pressure no more reliably than a count of tool calls. The repairs that help change which tools reach the model or who issues the calls, and only two repairs, neither improving model behavior, beat every configuration switch. We recommend reporting pressure effects with the harness budgets under which they were measured. We release the benchmark at this https URL.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Software Engineering (cs.SE)
arXiv:2610.21098 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.21098v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.21098 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 308 words
Related coverage
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs – Part 5: Profiling-Driven Kernel Optimization with an AI Code-Assist Tool
AMD · Jul 16, 2026
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · Oct 17, 2026