CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 23, 2026

The Tool-Overuse Illusion: Why Does LLM Prefer External Tools over Internal Knowledge?

arXiv AI Archived Apr 23, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.19749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Equipping LLMs with external tools effectively addresses internal reasoning limitations. However, it introduces a critical yet under-explored phenomenon: tool overuse, the unnecessary tool-use during reasoning. In this paper, we first reveal this phenomenon is pervasive across diverse LLMs. We then experimentally elucidate its underlying mechanisms through two key lenses: (1) First, by analyzing tool-use behavior across different internal knowledge

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 3 Mar 2026] The Tool-Overuse Illusion: Why Does LLM Prefer External Tools over Internal Knowledge? Yirong Zeng, Shen You, Yufei Liu, Qunyao Du, Xiao Ding, Yutai Hou, Yuxian Wang, Wu Ning, Haonan Song, Dandan Tu, Bibo Cai, Ting Liu Equipping LLMs with external tools effectively addresses internal reasoning limitations. However, it introduces a critical yet under-explored phenomenon: tool overuse, the unnecessary tool-use during reasoning. In this paper, we first reveal this phenomenon is pervasive across diverse LLMs. We then experimentally elucidate its underlying mechanisms through two key lenses: (1) First, by analyzing tool-use behavior across different internal knowledge availability regions, we identify a \textit{knowledge epistemic illusion}: models misjudge internal knowledge boundaries and fail to accurately perceive their actual knowledge availability. To mitigate this, we propose a knowledge-aware epistemic boundary alignment strategy based on direct preference optimization, which reduces tool usage in by 82.8\% while yielding an accuracy improvement. (2) Second, we establish a causal link between reward structures and tool-use behavior by visualizing the tool-augmented training process. It reveals that \textit{outcome-only rewards} inadvertently encourage tool overuse by rewarding only final correctness, regardless of tool efficiency. To verify this, we balance reward signals during training rather than relying on outcome-only rewards, cutting unnecessary tool calls by 66.7\% (7B) and 60.7\% (32B) without sacrificing accuracy. Finally, we provide theoretical justification in this two lenses to understand tool overuse. Comments: 17 pages, 9 figures Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE) Cite as: arXiv:2604.19749 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.19749v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.19749 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yirong Zeng [view email] [v1] Tue, 3 Mar 2026 08:55:55 UTC (850 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.SE References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 23, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 23, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗