Skip to main content
LLM Security Database
Skip to research details
Back to research findings
LMVD-ID: 84410cf3
Paper published April 1, 2025
Entry analyzed January 14, 2026
Paper-reported evidence
Confidence: Source-linked

The LMVD-ID is an internal research identifier, not an official CVE identifier.

Agent Tool Selection Hijack

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanism of Large Language Model (LLM) agents that utilize a retrieval-then-selection pipeline (RAG) for identifying executable tools. The vulnerability, known as…

BibTeX citation

Paper-evaluated models(8)

Llama 2 7B Chat, Llama 3 8B Instruct, Llama 3 70B Instruct +5 more
  • Llama 2 7B Chat
  • Llama 3 8B Instruct
  • Llama 3 70B Instruct
  • Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
  • Claude 3 Haiku
  • Claude 3.5 Sonnet
  • GPT-3.5
  • GPT-4o

Description

A vulnerability exists in the tool selection mechanism of Large Language Model (LLM) agents that utilize a retrieval-then-selection pipeline (RAG) for identifying executable tools. The vulnerability, known as "ToolHijacker," allows a remote attacker to manipulate the agent's decision-making process by injecting a malicious tool document into the accessible tool library (e.g., via third-party tool hubs or plugins). The attack employs a two-phase optimization strategy to craft a malicious tool description composed of two subsequences: a Retrieval-optimized sequence ($R$) and a Selection-optimized sequence ($S$). $R$ is optimized to maximize semantic similarity with target task descriptions, ensuring the malicious tool appears in the top-$k$ retrieved context. $S$ is optimized (using gradient-based or gradient-free methods) to force the LLM to select the malicious tool over benign alternatives within that context. This exploits the transferability of adversarial prompts in no-box scenarios, affecting agents even when the attacker lacks access to the target agent's specific weights or retriever parameters.

Examples

The attack constructs a malicious tool document $d_t = {d_{t_name}, R \oplus S}$. The attacker solves the following optimization problem to generate the description sequences:

  1. Retrieval Optimization ($R$): The attacker generates a description $R$ that maximizes similarity with shadow task descriptions $Q'$.
  • Objective: $\max_{R} \frac{1}{m'} \sum_{i=1}^{m'} Sim(f'(q'_i), f'(R \oplus S))$
  • Initialization (Example from MetaTool task): "The tool allows users to explore the cosmos by providing access to a vast collection of space images..."
  1. Selection Optimization ($S$): The attacker optimizes sequence $S$ to maximize the likelihood of the LLM outputting the malicious tool name $o_t$.
  • Objective: $\max_{S} \frac{1}{m'} \sum_{i=1}^{m'} \mathbb{I}(E'(q'_i, \tilde{D}^{(i)} \cup {d_t(S)}) = o_t)$
  • Gradient-Based Loss: $\mathcal{L}{all} = \mathcal{L}{alignment} + \alpha\mathcal{L}{consistency} + \beta\mathcal{L}{perplexity}$
  • Initialization (Example): "This tool is useful for searching for space images with the SpaceImageLocator tool."

See the "ToolHijacker" methodology in the paper for the specific gradient-descent (HotFlip) and gradient-free (Tree-of-Attack) algorithms used to mutate these initial seeds into adversarial prompts.

Impact

  • Arbitrary Tool Execution: The LLM agent is compelled to execute a tool defined by the attacker instead of the correct, benign tool intended for the user's query.
  • Security Bypass: The attack circumvents standard tool selection logic, potentially granting the attacker unauthorized access to APIs, data, or actions authorized for the agent.
  • Integrity Compromise: The agent's decision-making process is fundamentally altered, leading to reliable reproduction of attacker-desired outcomes regardless of user intent.

Affected Systems

  • LLM Agents utilizing two-step tool selection (Retrieval + Selection).
  • Models Tested: Llama-2-7B-chat, Llama-3-8B/70B-Instruct, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Haiku, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, GPT-3.5, GPT-4o.
  • Retrievers Tested: text-embedding-ada-002, Contriever, Contriever-ms, Sentence-BERT-tb.
  • Datasets: Systems trained or operating on tool libraries similar to MetaTool and ToolBench.

Mitigation Steps

  • Treat retrieved content, tool metadata, memory, and peer-agent messages as untrusted; enforce least-privilege tools, sandbox execution, and require confirmation for sensitive actions.
  • Validate and version retrieval sources and embeddings, isolate tenants or sessions, and independently authorize any action derived from retrieved or cached content.
  • Require authenticated tool manifests, verify tool provenance independently of retrieved descriptions, and authorize tool selection against the user's original task.
  • Reassess the full input and conversation intent before responding or invoking tools, combine model-level alignment with independent input and output policy checks, and avoid relying on a single signature or refusal heuristic.

Research context and confidence

Evidence and verification
Paper-reported; independent reproduction is not documented.
Primary research source linked.
Severity
Not rated by this catalog.
Source and publication type
arXiv · Research preprint.
Peer-review status is not provided by this source.
Author and publication status
Author metadata is not stored; see the primary paper.
Threat model and attacker access
Black-box model, service, or application access.
Related deployment categories
Retrieval-augmented generation; Agent workflows
Taxonomy labels only; paper-specific deployment prerequisites are not inferred.
Affected systems
LLM Agents utilizing two-step tool selection (Retrieval + Selection). Models Tested: Llama-2-7B-chat, Llama-3-8B/70B-Instruct, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, Claude-3-Haiku, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, GPT-3.5, GPT-4o. Retrievers…

Research Paper

Prompt Injection Attack to Tool Selection in LLM Agents

Primary source: arXiv. Findings are reported by the cited research and have not been independently verified.

View Paper

Evidence

This entry is based on a primary research source. Its findings are paper-reported; independent reproduction and verification are not claimed.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19793