How Adversarial Environments Mislead Agentic AI?

arXiv cs.AI / 4/22/2026

📰 NewsDeveloper Stack & InfrastructureIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • Tool-integrated agentic AI can be misled because evaluations focus on tool correctness in benign settings rather than testing whether agents can detect or handle deceptive tool outputs.
  • The paper introduces a threat model called Adversarial Environmental Injection (AEI), where attackers poison tool outputs to create a “fake world” around the agent.
  • It presents POTEMKIN, an MCP-compatible harness that enables plug-and-play robustness testing against this trust gap.
  • The authors distinguish two attack surfaces—“Illusion” (breadth) and “Maze” (depth)—and show that agents may trade off robustness between epistemic drift resistance and navigation/policy stability.
  • In 11,000+ runs across five frontier agents, the study finds a large robustness gap and demonstrates that epistemic and navigational robustness are largely independent capabilities.

Abstract

Tool-integrated agents are deployed on the premise that external tools ground their outputs in reality. Yet this very reliance creates a critical attack surface. Current evaluations benchmark capability in benign settings, asking "can the agent use tools correctly" but never "what if the tools lie". We identify this Trust Gap: agents are evaluated for performance, not for skepticism. We formalize this vulnerability as Adversarial Environmental Injection (AEI), a threat model where adversaries compromise tool outputs to deceive agents. AEI constitutes environmental deception: constructing a "fake world" of poisoned search results and fabricated reference networks around unsuspecting agents. We operationalize this via POTEMKIN, a Model Context Protocol (MCP)-compatible harness for plug-and-play robustness testing. We identify two orthogonal attack surfaces: The Illusion (breadth attacks) poison retrieval to induce epistemic drift toward false beliefs, while The Maze (depth attacks) exploit structural traps to cause policy collapse into infinite loops. Across 11,000+ runs on five frontier agents, we find a stark robustness gap: resistance to one attack often increases vulnerability to the other, demonstrating that epistemic and navigational robustness are distinct capabilities.