arXiv:2605. 24660v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Before an LLM agent can use a tool, a retrieval system must decide which candidate tools to show to the agent.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 27083v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLM agents increasingly depend on diverse external services such as search engines, databases, and connectors, agent harnesses face a fundamental tool-selection challenge: acquiring too few tools leaves the task under-informed, while too many adds cost, context load, and privacy exposure.
arXiv:2609.38822v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Anthropic's Agent Skills package reusable procedural know-how for an LLM agent into SKILL.md directories, and open-source aggregations have grown pas...
Toollery is a training‑free framework that compresses candidate lists for large language model agents, enabling efficient selection from thousands of skills and tools. It generates user‑intent queries from each skill or tool specification, builds a retrieval index, and limits online selection to a compact top‑k set before the LLM makes its final decision. Evaluations on the SkillRouter benchmark, BFCL‑V4, and a proprietary smart‑cockpit dataset show that Toollery improves recall and end‑to‑end selection while keeping selection costs bounded.
arXiv:2608. 09168v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent skills are increasingly used to equip large language model (LLM) agents with reusable procedural knowledge.
arXiv:2607. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents.
The paper investigates why large‑language‑model coding agents rarely request a second chunk of tool output, focusing on the precision‑at‑1 rate ($p_1$) of the gold item appearing first in the first chunk. In a benchmark of 500 software‑engineering tasks, the authors compare six value functions and find that increasing $p_1$ does not systematically improve downstream accuracy; the agent can recover the correct answer from any position within the chunk. Adding file‑metadata signals to a keyword scorer actually reduces $p_1$, while a parameter‑free keyword scorer improves $p_1$ but still fails to boost overall accuracy.