CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 15, 2026

Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Use

arXiv AI Archived May 15, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.14038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents that must decide when to answer directly vs. when to invoke external tools. Prior work studying adaptive tool use has largely treated tool necessity as a model-agnostic property, annotated by human or LLM judge, and mostly cover cases where the answer is obvious (e.g., fetching the weather vs. paraphrasing text). However, tool necessity in the wild is more nuanced due to the diverge

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 13 May 2026] Model-Adaptive Tool Necessity Reveals the Knowing-Doing Gap in LLM Tool Use Yize Cheng, Chenrui Fan, Mahdi JafariRaviz, Keivan Rezaei, Soheil Feiz Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as autonomous agents that must decide when to answer directly vs. when to invoke external tools. Prior work studying adaptive tool use has largely treated tool necessity as a model-agnostic property, annotated by human or LLM judge, and mostly cover cases where the answer is obvious (e.g., fetching the weather vs. paraphrasing text). However, tool necessity in the wild is more nuanced due to the divergence of capability boundaries across models: a problem solvable by a strong model on its own may still require tools for a weaker one. In this work, we introduce a model-adaptive definition of tool-necessity, grounded in each model's empirical performance. Following this definition, we compare the necessity against observed tool-call behavior across four models on arithmetic and factual QA dataset, and find substantial mismatches of 26.5-54.0% and 30.8-41.8%, respectively. To diagnose the failure, we decompose tool use into two stages: an internal cognition stage that reflects whether a model believes a tool is necessary, and an execution stage that determines whether the model actually makes a tool-call action. By probing the LLM hidden states, we find that both signals are often linearly decodable, yet their probe directions become nearly orthogonal in the late-layer, last-token regime that drives the next-token action. By tracing the trajectory of samples in the two-stage process, we further discover that the majority of mismatch is concentrated in the cognition-to-action transition, not in cognition itself. These results reveal a knowing-doing gap in LLM tool-use: improving tool-use reliability requires not only better recognition of when tools are needed, but also better translation of that recognition into action. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.14038 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.14038v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.14038 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yize Cheng [view email] [v1] Wed, 13 May 2026 18:59:28 UTC (1,009 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs 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
    May 15, 2026
    Archived
    May 15, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗