Tool-RoCo: An Agent-as-Tool Self-organization Large Language Model Benchmark in Multi-robot Cooperation

Authors: Ke Zhang, Xiaoning Zhao, Ce Zheng, Jiahong Ning, Dandan Zhu, Wenqi Zhang, Chen Sun, Toshiharu Sugawara

9 pages, 3 figures
License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2511.21510v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
This study introduces Tool-RoCo, a groundbreaking benchmark designed to assess the performance of large language models (LLMs) in long-term multi-agent cooperation scenarios. Drawing inspiration from RoCo, a multi-robot cooperative benchmark, Tool-RoCo focuses on agent autonomy by treating other agents as tools and introducing cooperative tools. These tools allow each LLM to select appropriate actions based on the current state, receive feedback, and adjust their selections in subsequent rounds. To evaluate different levels of autonomy, four distinct LLM paradigms are proposed: centralized cooperation, centralized self-organization, decentralized cooperation, and self-organization. Each paradigm offers unique insights into how LLMs interact with one another and coordinate their actions through tool usage. The benchmark includes three challenging multi-robot tasks - SORT, PACK, and CABINET - aimed at measuring format and parameter accuracy as well as agent coordination within the context of tool utilization. The results obtained from various LLMs showcased intriguing patterns. Larger models such as GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 exhibited stronger reflection and modification capabilities compared to smaller models like GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5-mini. Despite achieving higher tool calling accuracy and execution validity rates, the latest GPT-5 model demonstrated lower levels of reflection and modification when compared to GPT-4.1. Furthermore, the impact of different cooperation paradigms was evident in the study's findings. The Centralized Cooperation Paradigm yielded stable tool usage due to centralized coordination by a single LLM agent. On the other hand, decentralized paradigms highlighted challenges faced by smaller models in maintaining parameter validity and execution rates under distributed reasoning settings. Overall, these results underscore the importance of reflective adaptation and complexity within cooperative frameworks for enhancing LLM performance in multi-agent systems. By moving beyond basic tool metrics to explore higher-level cooperative measures such as cooperative tool ratio (CT) and self-organization (SO), Tool-RoCo aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing autonomy and coordination among LLM-based agents in collaborative tasks.
AI-generated keywords: Tool-RoCo Large Language Models Multi-Agent Cooperation Agent Autonomy Cooperative Tools

AI-generated Key Points

  • Tool-RoCo is a benchmark designed to assess large language models (LLMs) in long-term multi-agent cooperation scenarios.
  • Four distinct LLM paradigms are proposed: centralized cooperation, centralized self-organization, decentralized cooperation, and self-organization.
  • The benchmark includes three challenging multi-robot tasks - SORT, PACK, and CABINET - to measure format and parameter accuracy as well as agent coordination through tool utilization.
  • Larger models like GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 showed stronger reflection and modification capabilities compared to smaller models such as GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5-mini.
  • The latest GPT-5 model demonstrated lower reflection and modification levels despite higher tool calling accuracy and execution validity rates compared to GPT-4.1.
  • Different cooperation paradigms had varying impacts on LLM performance, with Centralized Cooperation yielding stable tool usage while decentralized paradigms highlighted challenges for smaller models in distributed reasoning settings.
  • Reflective adaptation and complexity within cooperative frameworks are crucial for enhancing LLM performance in multi-agent systems.
  • Tool-RoCo aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation framework by exploring higher-level cooperative measures such as cooperative tool ratio (CT) and self-organization (SO).
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: This study proposes Tool-RoCo, a novel benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in long-term multi-agent cooperation based on RoCo, a multi-robot cooperative benchmark. Recent research on LLM-based multi-agent systems has relied on predefined orchestration, while ignoring agent autonomy. Tool-RoCo treats other agents as tools and introduces cooperative tools, leveraging tool usage to evaluate multi-agent cooperation and self-organization. Tool usage means that each agent (LLM) selects a tool from a candidate set based on the current state, receives feedback, and adjusts its selection in subsequent rounds. To evaluate different autonomy levels, we propose four LLM paradigms: (1) centralized cooperation, where a single LLM allocates tools to all agents; (2) centralized self-organization, where a central LLM autonomously activates agents while keeping others inactive; (3) decentralized cooperation, where each agent has its own LLM and calls tools based on local information; and (4) self-organization, where a randomly chosen initial agent can request collaboration, activating additional agents via tool calls. Tool-RoCo includes three multi-robot tasks, SORT, PACK, and CABINET, to measure format and parameter accuracy and agent coordination through tool usage. The results using several LLMs showed that cooperative tools accounted for only 7.09% of all tools, indicating that LLM-based agents rarely invoked others as assistants. Moreover, activation tools accounted for 96.42%, suggesting that current LLMs tend to maintain active agents while seldom deactivating them for adaptive coordination. Tool-RoCo provides a systematic benchmark to evaluate LLM autonomy and cooperation in multi-agent tasks. Code and Demo: https://github.com/ColaZhang22/Tool-Roco

Submitted to arXiv on 26 Nov. 2025

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.