arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.18849

Ask the Tool, Don't Guess: Agent Tool Calls Hold Their Progress, and the Serving System Should Read It

Yipeng Liu·Yingqiang Zhang·Feifei Li·Huanchen Zhang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An agentic request spends substantial wall-clock time waiting for tools, and its KV cache holds GPU memory the whole time. Serving systems decide whether that cache stays, leaves, or comes back by guessing how long the tool will run, from the tool's name, its history, a duration declared before the call, or the engine's own occupancy. We show that no estimate fixed before a call starts can know its duration, and such estimates may not even rank the calls. Meanwhile, the running tool already holds the answer, but the agent stack together with the tool silences it. We propose that tool calls report their progress explicitly while they run, and we measure what that takes. A census of four public agent corpora finds a readable signal in most tool time once it is revealed, in two strengths: a fraction of the work remaining, or an accurate signal that the end is near. A harness recovers it without changing what the agent sees, at no measurable cost to the agent's benchmark score. At the points where a KV cache decision is made, the reported progress is between several times and an order of magnitude more accurate than the best published predictors, and it stays accurate when the environment changes. Plugged into a production engine through a few small hints, it cuts the p90 time to first token (TTFT) after a tool call by 20.7% (HBM only) and 20.8% (HBM + DRAM) against LRU, close to an oracle. A serving system should not guess what its tools can tell it.

Explore related subjects

cs.DCcs.AIcs.OS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yipeng Liu, Yingqiang Zhang, Feifei Li, Huanchen Zhang. 2026-09-16. Ask the Tool, Don't Guess: Agent Tool Calls Hold Their Progress, and the Serving System Should Read It. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.18849

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Reforge: Low-Latency Distributed GNN Serving with Selective Embedding Recomputation

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been widely adopted for their ability to compute expressive node representations in graph datasets. However, serving GNNs on large graphs is challenging due to the high communication, computation, and memory overheads of constructing and executing computation graphs, which represent information flow across large neighborhoods. Existing approximation techniques in training can mitigate the overheads but, in serving, still lead to high latency and/or accuracy loss. To this end, we propose Reforge, a system that enables low-latency GNN serving for large graphs with minimal accuracy loss through two key ideas. First, Reforge employs selective recomputation of precomputed embeddings, which allows for reusing precomputed computation subgraphs while selectively recomputing a small fraction to minimize accuracy loss. Second, we develop computation graph parallelism, which reduces communication overhead by parallelizing the creation and execution of computation graphs across machines. Our evaluation with large graph datasets and GNN models shows that Reforge significantly outperforms state-of-the-art techniques.

cs.DC↗
arXiv2026

Agentic AI Workload Characteristics

Agentic AI shifts LLM serving from isolated prompt-generation requests to stateful, multi-turn executions that repeatedly invoke the model, call tools, and grow context over time. This paper characterizes ReAct-style agents from both the LLM-serving and tool-execution perspectives using an end-to-end tracing infrastructure across reasoning and non-reasoning Gemma and Qwen configurations on five agentic benchmarks. Our study shows that agentic workloads are not simply long-prompt workloads: with effective context caching, most input tokens are reused across turns, making execution decode-dominated while increasing dependence on long-lived KV-cache state. We also find that tool use has a clear temporal structure, with agents shifting from read/explore behavior early in execution to execute/write behavior later. These results show that efficient agentic serving must jointly manage repeated model re-entry, persistent context state, and workload-dependent tool behavior.

cs.DC↗
arXiv2026

Byzantine Causal Reliable Broadcast (BCRB) with Constant-Size Message Metadata

Asynchronous Byzantine Reliable Broadcast (BRB) is a fundamental primitive that guarantees agreement and validity in distributed systems subject to Byzantine faults, but it lacks ordering guarantees. In this paper, we address Byzantine Causal Reliable Broadcast (BCRB), which builds on BRB to enforce causal message ordering. We present a novel BCRB protocol that decouples causal ordering from the BRB layer, achieving constant-size $\mathcal{O}(1)$ message metadata overhead and $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ communication word complexity as against $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ communication word complexity of existing protocols; here $n$ is the number of processes. We present two variants of our protocol: a cryptographic version using a threshold encryption scheme and sequence gating, and its non-cryptographic version. In the cryptographic version, senders broadcast ciphertexts immediately, and decryption shares are piggybacked on out-of-band ACKs, preventing early decryption and front-running. In both versions, causal safety is achieved probabilistically. We evaluate the probability of causal safety violations using a random variable path analysis under independent exponential link delay distributions. We show that both variants satisfy liveness and the probability of weak safety violation is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(f^{-3}\cdot\ln^3 f)$, where $f$ is the upper bound on the number of Byzantine processes, and $f < n/3$ and $f=\mathcal{O}(n)$. Further, for the crypto version, we show that the probability of strong safety violation is bounded by $\mathcal{O}(f^{-1} \cdot \ln^2 f)$. We also show how to modify our two protocols to guarantee 100\% weak safety keeping $\mathcal{O}(1)$ message space overhead but with $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ messages and $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$ communication word complexity.

cs.DC↗