Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited great potential in autonomously completing tasks across real-world applications. Despite this, these LLM agents introduce unexpected safety risks when operating in interactive environments. Instead of centering on LLM-generated content safety in most prior studies, this work addresses the imperative need for benchmarking the behavioral safety of LLM agents within diverse environments. We introduce R-Judge, a benchmark crafted to evaluate the proficiency of LLMs in judging safety risks given agent interaction records. R-Judge comprises 162 agent interaction records, encompassing 27 key risk scenarios among 7 application categories and 10 risk types. It incorporates human consensus on safety with annotated safety risk labels and high-quality risk descriptions. Utilizing R-Judge, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 8 prominent LLMs commonly employed as the backbone for agents. The best-performing model, GPT-4, achieves 72.29% in contrast to the human score of 89.38%, showing considerable room for enhancing the risk awareness of LLMs. Notably, leveraging risk descriptions as environment feedback significantly improves model performance, revealing the importance of salient safety risk feedback. Furthermore, we design an effective chain of safety analysis technique to help the judgment of safety risks and conduct an in-depth case study to facilitate future research. R-Judge is publicly available at https://github.com/Lordog/R-Judge.