EvolveTool-Bench: Evaluating the Quality of LLM-Generated Tool Libraries as Software Artifacts

arXiv cs.AI / 4/2/2026

💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper argues that current benchmarks for LLM agents focus mainly on whether downstream tasks succeed, overlooking the quality risks of the tool libraries those agents generate at runtime.
  • It introduces EvolveTool-Bench, a benchmark that evaluates LLM-generated tool libraries using library-level metrics (e.g., reuse, redundancy, composition success, regression stability, and safety) and per-tool Tool Quality Scores (e.g., correctness, robustness, generality, and code quality).
  • Across three execution-dependent domains—proprietary data formats, API orchestration, and numerical computation—the authors show how tool libraries can vary in health even when task completion rates are similar.
  • In a head-to-head comparison (ARISE vs. EvoSkill vs. one-shot baselines) over 99 tasks with two models, systems with comparable task completion (63–68%) can differ by up to 18% in library health, highlighting the limitations of task-only evaluation.
  • The work concludes that evaluating and governing evolving, LLM-generated tools should treat the tool library as a first-class software artifact rather than a black box.

Abstract

Modern LLM agents increasingly create their own tools at runtime -- from Python functions to API clients -- yet existing benchmarks evaluate them almost exclusively by downstream task completion. This is analogous to judging a software engineer only by whether their code runs, ignoring redundancy, regression, and safety. We introduce EvolveTool-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for LLM-generated tool libraries in software engineering workflows. Across three domains requiring actual tool execution (proprietary data formats, API orchestration, and numerical computation), we define library-level software quality metrics -- reuse, redundancy, composition success, regression stability, and safety -- alongside a per-tool Tool Quality Score measuring correctness, robustness, generality, and code quality. In the first head-to-head comparison of code-level and strategy-level tool evolution (ARISE vs. EvoSkill vs. one-shot baselines, 99 tasks, two models), we show that systems with similar task completion (63-68%) differ by up to 18% in library health, revealing software quality risks invisible to task-only evaluation. Our results highlight that evaluation and governance of LLM-generated tools require treating the evolving tool library as a first-class software artifact, not a black box.