Enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a key strategy for building Agents that "think then act." However, recent observations, like OpenAI's o3, suggest a paradox: stronger reasoning often coincides with increased hallucination, yet no prior work has systematically examined whether reasoning enhancement itself causes tool hallucination. To address this gap, we pose the central question: Does strengthening reasoning increase tool hallucination? To answer this, we introduce SimpleToolHalluBench, a diagnostic benchmark measuring tool hallucination in two failure modes: (i) no tool available, and (ii) only distractor tools available. Through controlled experiments, we establish three key findings. First, we demonstrate a causal relationship: progressively enhancing reasoning through RL increases tool hallucination proportionally with task performance gains. Second, this effect transcends overfitting - training on non-tool tasks (e.g., mathematics) still amplifies subsequent tool hallucination. Third, the effect is method-agnostic, appearing when reasoning is instilled via supervised fine-tuning and when it is merely elicited at inference by switching from direct answers to step-by-step thinking. We also evaluate mitigation strategies including Prompt Engineering and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), revealing a fundamental reliability-capability trade-off: reducing hallucination consistently degrades utility. Mechanistically, Reasoning RL disproportionately collapses tool-reliability-related representations, and hallucinations surface as amplified divergences concentrated in late-layer residual streams. These findings reveal that current reasoning enhancement methods inherently amplify tool hallucination, highlighting the need for new training objectives that jointly optimize for capability and reliability.

Current evaluations of tool-integrated LLM agents typically focus on end-to-end tool-usage evaluation while neglecting their stability. This limits their real-world applicability, as various internal or external factors can cause agents to crash or behave abnormally. Our research addresses this by investigating whether agents are vulnerable to errors throughout the entire tool invocation process, including reading tool documentation, selecting tools and generating parameters, and processing the tool's response. Through extensive experiments, we observe that agents are highly susceptible to errors at each stage and agents based on open-source models are more vulnerable than those based on proprietary models. We also find that increasing the model size does not significantly improve tool invocation reasoning and may make agents more vulnerable to attacks resembling normal user instructions. This highlights the importance of evaluating agent stability and offers valuable insights for future LLM development and evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have extended their capabilities beyond language generation to interact with external systems through tool calling, offering powerful potential for real-world applications. However, the phenomenon of tool hallucinations, which occur when models improperly select or misuse tools, presents critical challenges that can lead to flawed task execution and increased operational costs. This paper investigates the concept of reliable tool calling and highlights the necessity of addressing tool hallucinations. We systematically categorize tool hallucinations into two main types: tool selection hallucination and tool usage hallucination. To mitigate these issues, we propose a reliability-focused alignment framework that enhances the model's ability to accurately assess tool relevance and usage. By proposing a suite of evaluation metrics and evaluating on StableToolBench, we further demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in mitigating tool hallucination and improving the overall system reliability of LLM tool calling.