Do Multimodal Agents Really Benefit from Tool Use? A Systematic Study of Capability Gains

Tool-augmented multimodal agents show strong benchmark gains, often taken as evidence that agents have learned to use tools. We argue that this interpretation can be premature: a tool-call trace alone does not show whether the tool supplied answer-critical information. We study two representative ``thinking with images'' agents, Thyme and DeepEyesV2, across real-world understanding, OCR, chart understanding, and mathematical reasoning. Each agent is compared with its Tool-Free counterpart and with a Pure-Text Reasoner trained from the same source pool without tool-calling trajectories. Tool access yields little consistent aggregate improvement, does not reliably reduce generated-token cost, and leaves only a small tool-only solved set: 93% of DeepEyesV2's tool-solved problems and 96% of Thyme's are also solved by at least one non-tool setting. Mechanism ablations further show that the full tool-use loop does not consistently outperform either the tool-call format or the returned execution result alone. In the settings we study, the analyzed agents appear to learn tool-calling patterns more reliably than tool-contributed capabilities, suggesting that evaluation should distinguish tool availability from whether tools actually expand what agents can solve.

Beyond Visual Memory: Mechanistic Diagnostics of Latent Visual Reasoning

Recent latent visual reasoning methods achieve substantial gains by inserting continuous latent tokens into multimodal language models. These gains are commonly attributed to the tokens encoding visual evidence; recent analyses, however, reveal a paradox: the tokens are loosely tied to the image and contribute little to the answer. Critically, these analyses treat latent tokens as a single unit, obscuring the true source of the gains. We therefore decompose latent tokens into three testable components: latent slots, boundary markers, and format, and develop a state-of-the-art method as a probe under favorable conditions. Across six method-stage settings and four perception-heavy benchmarks, latent slots fail every prediction of the visual-memory account. Strikingly, retaining only the boundary markers preserves 78 to 100% of the gain in several settings, while the model attends to the image more narrowly at latent positions than at answer positions. The gain therefore comes from boundary markers, format, and this attention pattern, not from latent slots. How each method engages this mechanism depends on its training supervision: at matched accuracy, mechanisms can still differ markedly. Latent visual reasoning thus needs evaluation not only by accuracy but by what the model actually relies on.