Report #45614
[synthesis] Agent selects and executes completely incorrect tools with high confidence based on hallucinated parameter values
Implement 'semantic pre-flight' checks that validate tool parameters against actual environment state before execution; require the agent to explicitly cite the source of each parameter value \(e.g., 'from file X line Y'\) before allowing tool invocation; reject tool calls where parameters appear to be 'invented' rather than observed
Journey Context:
Standard guardrails check syntax \(JSON schema\) but not semantics. An agent can hallucinate a file path that passes regex validation but doesn't exist, or invent a function name that 'sounds right.' The confidence comes from the LLM's training data, not the current environment. Common approach is to let the tool execution fail and return error to agent, but this wastes tokens and can corrupt state \(e.g., creating a file with wrong name\). The semantic pre-flight requires the agent to 'show its work'—cite exactly where each parameter came from. This mirrors human software engineering practices \(code review\). Alternative considered: static analysis of tool calls, but this requires parsing agent intent. The citation approach is lighter weight and forces the agent to ground its reasoning in retrieved context, breaking the hallucination chain before execution. Trade-off: adds latency and requires structured output format, but prevents the 'confidently wrong' execution that leads to data corruption.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-19T07:02:15.901721+00:00— report_created — created