Daily Papers

Agentic services alternate between model inference on clustered GPUs and external tools on distributed CPUs. In this scenario, existing systems (1) overlook tool-return readiness in service evaluation, wasting limited resources, and (2) use heuristic strategies to decide admission and placement on GPUs, resulting in suboptimal scheduling decisions. To bridge this gap, we present TAO, a tool-aware joint scheduling framework for LLM-based agentic serving. Its value interface combines near-term tool readiness, node-specific cache credit with time-aware decay, and token footprint; a dynamic program jointly selects and places waiting sessions under capacity constraints. Across the 12 reported model-workload-concurrency settings, TAO reduces latency by up to 26.8%, reduces mean time to first token (TTFT) by up to 36.3%, and increases decode throughput by up to 29.5% relative to the best evaluated state-of-the-art baseline for each metric.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that solve tasks by interacting with external tool environments. Although recent tool-use benchmarks increasingly cover complex task settings, they still largely assume clean, stable, and trustworthy tool environments, leaving tool-environment unreliability insufficiently examined. We introduce ToolBench-X, a benchmark for evaluating agents under recoverable reliability hazards. ToolBench-X contains executable multi-step tasks across diverse domains and sequential, parallel, and mixed workflows, each paired with deterministic tools and a canonical final answer for automatic evaluation. Starting from clean tool environments, ToolBench-X injects five structured hazard types: Specification Drift, Invocation Error, Execution Failure, Output Drift, and Cross-source Conflict. Crucially, each injected instance remains solvable through at least one valid recovery path, such as retrying, fallback, verification, or cross-checking. Experiments reveal a substantial reliability gap: agents that perform well with reliable tools often fail under recoverable hazards. Further analysis shows that failures are driven less by tool-use volume or inference budget than by limited hazard diagnosis and ineffective recovery. Targeted recovery hints recover many failed tasks, while test-time scaling yields more limited gains. These results suggest that tool-use evaluation should move beyond function-call accuracy toward task completion under unreliable tool environments. The code and data is available at https://github.com/Foreverskyou/ToolBench-X.

Parametric retrieval enables LLMs to retrieve tools implicitly by assigning each API a unique virtual token and training the model to generate it via constrained beam search. Toolsense shows that this regime has two critical drawbacks: it destroys parametric tool knowledge during training, and its beam-search decoding is too slow for real-time deployment. We introduce TRACE (Tool Retrieval via Augmented Chain-of-thought and Enterprise rules), a two-stage curriculum that resolves this dissociation. Stage 1 reuses the multi-format memorization SFT from ToolSense to seed tool knowledge with LoRA. Stage 2 is our core contribution: the model is trained to emit a thinking trace before producing a JSON list of tool tokens, using two data sources -- RRB pairs from ToolSense and queries synthesized to target business rules curated by domain experts -- both augmented with reasoning traces. This training objective preserves Stage 1 MCQ and QA probing accuracy while enabling single-beam greedy decoding at production latency. Evaluated on a combined enterprise catalog of 8,300+ tools across two enterprise product lines, TRACE training for Stage 2 not only preserves but improves tool understanding: MCQ accuracy gains +3.2 pp and QA probing gains +9 pp over Stage 1. On retrieval, TRACE achieves ~86% recall on Domain A and ~60% on Domain B -- compared to embedding baseline performance of ~27% & ~52% -- both with single-beam greedy decoding, making it directly deployable at production latency.

This paper presents a new tool learning dataset Seal-Tools, which contains self-instruct API-like tools. Seal-Tools not only offers a large number of tools, but also includes instances which demonstrate the practical application of tools. Seeking to generate data on a large scale while ensuring reliability, we propose a self-instruct method to generate tools and instances, allowing precise control over the process. Moreover, our Seal-Tools contains hard instances that call multiple tools to complete the job, among which some are nested tool callings. For precise and comprehensive evaluation, we use strict format control and design three metrics from different dimensions. Therefore, Seal-Tools can serve as a new benchmark to evaluate the tool-calling ability of LLMs. Finally, we evaluate several prevalent LLMs and our finetuned model on Seal-Tools. The results show that current systems are far from perfect. The code, data and experiment results are available at https://github.com/fairyshine/Seal-Tools .

Deciding whether to call a tool is a core competence of an LLM agent, and a costly one to get wrong: needless calls add latency, accrue cost, and may trigger irreversible side effects, while missing calls leave the model confidently wrong on questions it could only answer through tool-calls. Models manage this balance poorly, both over-using and under-using tools. Existing methods such as post-training and prompt engineering are expensive and difficult to modify at inference time. We show that whether an instruction-tuned model calls a tool can be controlled by a single linear direction in its residual stream, extracted without any training from the model's own tool-use preference signal and turned into an inference-time intervention with no prompt change. Adding the direction with strength α moves the call rate monotonically from near 0% to over 90% while keeping calls well-formed. The steering works in both directions: dialing it down suppresses calls, and dialing it up induces new calls that land precisely on the questions the model cannot answer from its own knowledge. We also show that the direction generalizes to unseen tools with strength comparable to each tool's own direction and without favoring any specific tool choice. With live tool execution, a single sweep of the steering traces a cost/accuracy Pareto frontier and nearly doubles open-domain QA accuracy (0.29 ! rightarrow ! 0.56); the same recipe transfers across a diverse range of models spanning dense, MoE, and multimodal architectures, without any training. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/YuqiChen4188/Steering-Tool-Use-Propensity.

Humans possess an extraordinary ability to create and utilize tools, allowing them to overcome physical limitations and explore new frontiers. With the advent of foundation models, AI systems have the potential to be equally adept in tool use as humans. This paradigm, i.e., tool learning with foundation models, combines the strengths of specialized tools and foundation models to achieve enhanced accuracy, efficiency, and automation in problem-solving. Despite its immense potential, there is still a lack of a comprehensive understanding of key challenges, opportunities, and future endeavors in this field. To this end, we present a systematic investigation of tool learning in this paper. We first introduce the background of tool learning, including its cognitive origins, the paradigm shift of foundation models, and the complementary roles of tools and models. Then we recapitulate existing tool learning research into tool-augmented and tool-oriented learning. We formulate a general tool learning framework: starting from understanding the user instruction, models should learn to decompose a complex task into several subtasks, dynamically adjust their plan through reasoning, and effectively conquer each sub-task by selecting appropriate tools. We also discuss how to train models for improved tool-use capabilities and facilitate the generalization in tool learning. Considering the lack of a systematic tool learning evaluation in prior works, we experiment with 18 representative tools and show the potential of current foundation models in skillfully utilizing tools. Finally, we discuss several open problems that require further investigation for tool learning. In general, we hope this paper could inspire future research in integrating tools with foundation models.

Tool-augmented LLM agents tend to call tools indiscriminately, even when the model can answer directly. Each unnecessary call wastes API fees and latency, yet no existing benchmark systematically studies when a tool call is actually needed. We propose When2Tool, a benchmark of 18 environments (15 single-hop, 3 multi-hop) spanning three categories of tool necessity -- computational scale, knowledge boundaries, and execution reliability -- each with controlled difficulty levels that create a clear decision boundary between tool-necessary and tool-unnecessary tasks. We evaluate two families of training-free baselines: Prompt-only (varying the prompt to discourage unnecessary calls) and Reason-then-Act (requiring the model to reason about tool necessity before acting). Both provide limited control: Prompt-only suppresses necessary calls alongside unnecessary ones, and Reason-then-Act still incurs a disproportionate accuracy cost on hard tasks. To understand why these baselines fail, we probe the models' hidden states and find that tool necessity is linearly decodable from the pre-generation representation with AUROC 0.89--0.96 across six models, substantially exceeding the model's own verbalized reasoning. This reveals that models already know when tools are needed, but fail to act on this knowledge during generation. Building on this finding, we propose Probe&Prefill, which uses a lightweight linear probe to read the hidden-state signal and prefills the model's response with a steering sentence. Across all models tested, Probe&Prefill reduces tool calls by 48% with only 1.7% accuracy loss, while the best baseline at comparable accuracy only reduces 6% of tool calls, or achieves a similar tool call reduction but incurs a 5times higher accuracy loss. Our code is available at https://github.com/Trustworthy-ML-Lab/when2tool

GPU training jobs fail often, roughly two in five on large production clusters, yet the operator typically learns of a failure only by reconnecting hours later. Experiment trackers require editing the training script and maintaining a cloud connection; the scheduler's mail hook delivers a single status line with no cause and no logs. GPUAlert is a command-line wrapper that monitors any training command at the process boundary, and with no change to that command, emails a structured notification on completion carrying a classified failure cause, durable logs, and output artifacts. The tool is organized around three reliability primitives: a pre-launch log guarantee that establishes the durable destination before the child process can crash, notifier isolation that makes the wrapper's exit code a pure function of the child's status regardless of whether the email succeeds, and a non-silent artifact budget that bounds attachment size without ever dropping output silently. We release a labelled corpus of 474 GPU training logs across 15 failure classes and a reproducible evaluation harness. On the twelve hardware-reproduced classes, the ordered-rule classifier reaches 0.997 macro-F1, against 0.830 for unordered keyword matching and 0.133 for exit-code inspection. Wrapper overhead is a constant approximately 3ms per job; the pre-launch guarantee preserves a log where a shell redirect yields nothing; and across all 15 failure modes the wrapper returns the child's exit code unchanged even when the SMTP relay is unreachable.

LLM agents that invoke privileged tools are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which adversarial instructions embedded in retrieved data hijack the agent's actions. A growing body of work evaluates defenses against IPI, but the validity of that evaluation is rarely examined. We audit an IPI benchmark and its harness and identify four defect classes -- silent payload non-delivery, attack success scored by tool identity rather than arguments, false-rejection rate conflated with model incapacity, and the absence of an audit trail -- each of which yields a plausible, publishable, and incorrect number. We quantify the distortion by re-scoring identical execution traces under the defective and corrected definitions: on real agent behaviour, the tool-identity scorer reports a 21.7% attack-success rate where the true argument-level rate is 1.2%. In the sharpest case, an open model previously reported at 62.8% registers 0% under the corrected harness -- the prior figure largely an artifact of undelivered payloads and identity-level scoring. We release a harness whose construction makes each defect unrepresentable -- machine-checkable payload placement, argument-level attacker predicates, per-scenario environments, and mandatory trace persistence -- and use it to report three quantities the field does not: whether a compromised agent discloses the attack, the full security/utility operating curve of an LLM-judge defense, and tool-calling capability disentangled from defensive over-blocking. A corrected harness further overturns a reported "capability barrier": a model deemed incapable of tool use is in fact fully capable, its earlier result an artifact of environment mismatch. We argue that evaluation validity is a prerequisite for, not a footnote to, defense claims in agentic security, and provide an instrument that enforces it.

Tool retrieval determines which external tools are exposed to an LLM agent for a user query or task, making retrieval a critical pre-execution safety boundary. Unlike document retrieval, tool retrieval exposes executable actions: a tool that is useful for one task may be unnecessary or risky for another. However, existing tool-retrieval methods primarily optimize semantic relevance, and safety evaluations often focus on failures after tool execution rather than risks introduced during retrieval. We study risk-aware tool retrieval, where the goal is to retrieve useful tools while reducing exposure to higher-risk tools. We propose a lightweight reranking framework on top of a frozen first-stage retriever. The framework models query-conditioned relevance and tool-level exposure risk separately, combines them through an explicit parameter controlling the tradeoff between safety and utility, smooths scores over a ToolGraph, and optionally applies rule-based safety constraints. To support retrieval-time safety evaluation, we annotate 6,108 tools across UltraTool and Seal-Tools with five ordinal risk levels and define metrics that measure risky-tool exposure in the top-k results. Experiments on UltraTool and Seal-Tools show that our approach improves the relevance--safety tradeoff over relevance-only retrievers and reranking baselines, with the rule-filtered variant providing a conservative operating point for safety-critical deployments. These findings indicate that retrieval-stage filtering can reduce the candidate action space exposed to agents before execution, complementing downstream tool-use safeguards. The code and supplementary materials are available at: https://github.com/qli447/risk-aware-tool-retrieval-release.

Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities but potentially incurring substantial costs. Moreover, tool use is not always beneficial: redundant or low-utility calls can even harm task performance. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to understand tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility for optimal tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open models and a proprietary OpenAI model across native and customized harnesses, two tools, and six tasks. Models' perceived need and utility remain misaligned with their true values, particularly under budget constraints. This misalignment produces both costly overuse and performance-degrading calls. To improve the tool decisions, we train lightweight latent estimators of need (LNEs) from model hidden states. LNEs generally predict true need more accurately than model self-reports and improve budgeted tool allocation across model scales and tool types. Code and dataset available at https://github.com/QinyuanWu0710/ToCall_or_NotToCall.

Large language model (LLM)-based agents have shown strong capabilities in using external tools to solve complex tasks. However, existing evaluations often overlook the temporal dimension of tool use, especially the impact of tool response latency, and are usually limited to single-task settings. In real-world applications, multiple tasks often need to be executed concurrently, and overall efficiency depends on whether an agent can use idle time while waiting for tool responses. We refer to this capability as asynchronous tool calling. To evaluate it, we propose AsyncTool, a benchmark for assessing LLM-based agents in interactive multi-task tool-use environments with delayed tool feedback. AsyncTool presents multiple heterogeneous tasks simultaneously and simulates realistic tool response latency during execution. Using a hybrid data evolution strategy, we construct a diverse asynchronous multitasking dataset that covers multiple scenarios and tool-use patterns. We evaluate models at the step, sub-task, and task levels, and introduce efficiency-oriented metrics to measure task coordination and completion efficiency. Extensive experiments show that delayed tool feedback poses substantial challenges to current agents and leads to clear performance degradation. Models that better coordinate task switching, dependency tracking, and state maintenance achieve stronger performance on AsyncTool. Our analysis identifies key failure modes of current tool-using agents and provides practical insights for designing future systems with stronger temporal reasoning and coordination capabilities.

Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work. When a tool times out, returns a week-stale value, or has its description poisoned in deployment, the developer needs a controlled way to reproduce the failure, test a fix, and confirm the fix worked before deployment. We present AgentCheck, an open-source web workbench that turns an MCP server into an intervention surface. AgentCheck runs an agent against its real tools and records every tool response, then re-runs the agent with the response perturbed by a fault (12 types) injector. Matching tool calls are replayed from cache, and later tool calls go live after the agent diverges. This yields a reproduce-intervene-confirm loop: the developer toggles a mitigation, re-runs against the identical fault, and sees if the failure goes away. Scoring has two parts: deterministic pass/fail rules, plus an LLM judge for interpretive labels, validated against human annotations. Across five agents, the best passes 105/120 scenarios and the weakest only 77. The failures are usually silent, confident use of incorrect tool outputs rather than crashes. On the weakest agent, a retry mitigation raises success on timeout error faults from as few as 30% of cases to 100%, whereas stale-data faults remain near 3-4 of 10 regardless of the mitigation. AgentCheck makes these failure modes reproducible, comparable, and verifiable before deployment.

Tool-augmented LLMs must arbitrate between two fallible sources when a tool return conflicts with their parametric memory, yet existing evaluations measure source preference without establishing source correctness. We introduce MemToC, a controlled benchmark for post-tool-return arbitration with executable tools. MemToC comprises 6,504 evaluation episodes constructed from 542 quality-controlled factual questions, independently elicited model-specific closed-book answers, and controlled tool returns of known correctness. These components instantiate four source-correctness cases; tool-error and no-tool conditions are separate controls. Across five open-weight 7-9B models, tool returns strongly dominate elicited closed-book answers. The four instruction-tuned models retain a verified-correct answer against an incorrect tool in only 6.5-17.1% of eligible cases, follow a correct tool in 86.0-93.1%, and repeat the tool return in 78.4-86.0% of cases where both sources are wrong. No cross-model ordering remains stable across three instruction-wording variants with the question and episode content held fixed. We compare prompting with SFT and DPO using chain-level cross-fitting over ToolHop, so questions sharing an underlying fact never straddle training and evaluation. We apply an asymmetric success criterion: correct-answer retention must improve without a detected reduction in correct-tool following. SFT and DPO meet this criterion on the same two of four instruction-tuned backbones. Improvements rarely come cleanly: 19 of 20 tested method-model combinations reduce abstention after tool errors or on unanswerable inputs. Transfer beyond MemToC is positive but partial and depends on the model and presentation frame. Correctness-conditioned arbitration can be improved through fine-tuning, but gains must be evaluated jointly with correct tool use, abstention, and robustness to formulation.

Most existing embodied intelligence methods formulate perception, reasoning, planning, and control within a unified parameterized policy. Yet these capabilities are inherently hierarchical and heterogeneous, making them difficult to reliably learn and modularize within a single model. We propose a capability externalization approach that decouples heterogeneous capabilities into independently optimized tools, dynamically invoked at inference time. To this end, we introduce Embodied Tool Protocol (ETP), a standardized protocol for embodied tool registration, discovery, invocation, and execution, and curate 100+ validated tools spanning perception, cognition, reasoning, and execution as the tool base. Building on this, we construct EmbodiedToolBench to evaluate both whether tool augmentation improves embodied performance and how well current models use tools across tool-necessity recognition, tool selection, tool execution, and tool-chain composition. Experiments across simulation and real-world platforms confirm that capability externalization consistently improves embodied performance (avg. gain 31% on EB-ALFRED and 36% on EB-Navigation), yet reveal a clear boundary: gains are substantial for cognition and perception but are limited for execution-type capabilities. Moreover, our analysis reveals that knowing when, which, and how to invoke tools remains a persistent challenge across all models, thereby highlighting embodied tool competence as a critical direction for future research.

Technical hiring has increasingly become a skill system of its own, requiring candidates to prepare for processes that only partially resemble the position being filled. This paper reconstructs how the software-engineering community remembers that process across four eras from 2005 to 2026. Retrospective ratings from 911 respondents show a history of expanding interview work and burden, while an analysis of public preparation questions finds that most tested knowledge has a plausible use in an ordinary software-engineering project. The contradiction is only apparent: relevant topics can still form an invalid process when they are accumulated beyond the vacancy, presented under artificial constraints, or selected and interpreted without a common job-derived standard. The paper responds with the Ticket-Based Pragmatic Assessment Framework, a prescriptive reference framework that derives a bounded assessment from declared responsibilities, near-term tickets, and project-entry work. It preserves normal tools, defines three explicit evidence gates, limits repeated sessions, and stops when the decision is supported. The objective is to make an interview a compressed version of the job rather than a parallel profession that candidates must learn merely to obtain it.

Keyword-matching benchmarks can credit small models for tool use they never perform. We document such a false positive in a matched-architecture pair of Spanish security language models and propose a ladder of strict, cheap diagnostics. A 661.6M parameter model (approx. 65% code/technical text; no dedicated SFT) and a 1,109M model (web-heavy multi-phase curriculum; 6B-token tool-SFT) share decoder, tokenizer, and special tokens, scoring almost identically on lenient tool-use metrics (B4: 0.660 vs. 0.650). Verbatim-reproduction checks on training examples separate them completely: the 600M emits valid tool calls with generalized arguments on 6/6 examples; the 1B does so on 0/6 across checkpoints. A first-token probe localizes the 1B's failure to a missing prior (prob. 10^{-4}--10^{-5} on <|tool_call|>), which was erased by its web-heavy training phase. A targeted SFT recipe (diverse corpus, 5x higher learning rate, 2,202 steps, ~3.3 GPU-hours) repairs the 1B using three orders of magnitude fewer tokens than the failed phase. On all 269 corpus rows, valid emission rises from 0.100 to 0.959 (600M: 0.926). On 238 unseen prompts, the repaired 1B passes 0.536 vs. the 600M's 0.428 (p = 0.004). Embedding-drift checks show the repair did not move the trigger token's tied embedding (97.7% of the bf16 table remains bit-identical), meaning changes live in the surrounding network. Both models over-trigger, rarely answering negative prompts without a call (0.09 for 600M, 0.17 for repaired 1B). Factorial analyses confirm all repair configurations install the format, though suppression benefits from a diverse corpus remain a hypothesis due to seed sensitivity. This cheap diagnostic ladder costs minutes of CPU time and should gate tool-use claims on small models.

Existing evaluations of tool learning primarily focus on validating the alignment of selected tools for large language models (LLMs) with expected outcomes. However, these approaches rely on a limited set of scenarios where answers can be pre-determined, diverging from genuine needs. Furthermore, a sole emphasis on outcomes disregards the intricate capabilities essential for LLMs to effectively utilize tools. To tackle this issue, we propose ToolEyes, a fine-grained system tailored for the evaluation of the LLMs' tool learning capabilities in authentic scenarios. The system meticulously examines seven real-world scenarios, analyzing five dimensions crucial to LLMs in tool learning: format alignment, intent comprehension, behavior planning, tool selection, and answer organization. Additionally, ToolEyes incorporates a tool library boasting approximately 600 tools, serving as an intermediary between LLMs and the physical world. Evaluations involving ten LLMs across three categories reveal a preference for specific scenarios and limited cognitive abilities in tool learning. Intriguingly, expanding the model size even exacerbates the hindrance to tool learning. These findings offer instructive insights aimed at advancing the field of tool learning. The data is available att https://github.com/Junjie-Ye/ToolEyes.

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.

Recent advancements in tool-equipped Agents (LLMs) have enabled complex tasks like secure database interactions and multi-agent code development. However, scaling tool capacity beyond agent reasoning or model limits remains a challenge. In this paper, we address these challenges by introducing Toolshed Knowledge Bases, a tool knowledge base (vector database) designed to store enhanced tool representations and optimize tool selection for large-scale tool-equipped Agents. Additionally, we propose Advanced RAG-Tool Fusion, a novel ensemble of tool-applied advanced retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) techniques across the pre-retrieval, intra-retrieval, and post-retrieval phases, without requiring model fine-tuning. During pre-retrieval, tool documents are enhanced with key information and stored in the Toolshed Knowledge Base. Intra-retrieval focuses on query planning and transformation to increase retrieval accuracy. Post-retrieval refines the retrieved tool documents and enables self-reflection. Furthermore, by varying both the total number of tools (tool-M) an Agent has access to and the tool selection threshold (top-k), we address trade-offs between retrieval accuracy, agent performance, and token cost. Our approach achieves 46%, 56%, and 47% absolute improvements on the ToolE single-tool, ToolE multi-tool and Seal-Tools benchmark datasets, respectively (Recall@5).

Tool learning aims to enhance and expand large language models' (LLMs) capabilities with external tools, which has gained significant attention recently. Current methods have shown that LLMs can effectively handle a certain amount of tools through in-context learning or fine-tuning. However, in real-world scenarios, the number of tools is typically extensive and irregularly updated, emphasizing the necessity for a dedicated tool retrieval component. Tool retrieval is nontrivial due to the following challenges: 1) complex user instructions and tool descriptions; 2) misalignment between tool retrieval and tool usage models. To address the above issues, we propose to enhance tool retrieval with iterative feedback from the large language model. Specifically, we prompt the tool usage model, i.e., the LLM, to provide feedback for the tool retriever model in multi-round, which could progressively improve the tool retriever's understanding of instructions and tools and reduce the gap between the two standalone components. We build a unified and comprehensive benchmark to evaluate tool retrieval models. The extensive experiments indicate that our proposed approach achieves advanced performance in both in-domain evaluation and out-of-domain evaluation.