Linear probes trained on internal activations of Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as evaluation metrics for deceptive generation, automated monitors that score whether a model’s output was produced deceptively, without requiring ground-truth labels or human annotation. Yet these metrics report AUROC scores exceeding 0.96 on clean benchmarks while demonstrating profound fragility under distributional shift. This paper presents a systematic pressure-test of such probe-based evaluation metrics across the Gemma 3 model family (1B–27B parameters), diagnosing why they fail rather than merely documenting that they fail. We investigate four competing hypotheses about how deception is encoded: as (1) a single linear direction, (2) a multi-dimensional subspace, (3) a convex conic hull, or (4) a proxy for computational entropy. Our experimental design includes cross-domain transfer matrices, multi-dimensional probe analysis with permutation null baselines, entropy-residualization tests, and systematic distractor evaluations across 8 stylistic shifts. Across all four model scales, we find that: (a) probe-based metrics achieve near-perfect AUROC (≥0.998) on clean data but collapse under stylistic shifts when trained without stylistic augmentation, style-augmented probes recover near-perfect detection (mean AUROC 0.979–0.983) even on unseen styles; (b) the single-direction hypothesis is decisively rejected (k=1 captures only 0.61–0.80 AUROC of the signal, with cross-domain transfer failure confirmed as geometric rather than layer-mismatch-driven; (c) the entropy-proxy hypothesis is rejected (maximum |𝜌|=0.454, maximum 𝛥AUROC after residualization=0.004); and (d) deception does not form a statistically significant linear subspace even within individual domains (per-domain k^*=0), yet multi-dimensional probes (k≥5) consistently recover the signal through distributed sub-threshold features. These findings demonstrate that probe fragility under standard training reflects distributional narrowness rather than a fundamental architectural limitation: style-augmented probes recover near-perfect detection (mean AUROC 0.979–0.983 on unseen styles) at both the 4B and 27B scales, establishing that the inverse scaling pattern observed under standard training is a training-distribution artifact rather than a genuine scale-dependent phenomenon.

Can small language models achieve strong tool-use performance without complex adaptation mechanisms? This paper investigates this question through Meta-Tool, a controlled empirical study comparing hypernetwork-based LoRA adaptation against carefully designed few-shot prompting. Using a Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct backbone, we evaluate four adaptation mechanisms—few-shot prompting, documentation encoding, hypernetwork-generated LoRA weights, and value-guided beam search—across four diverse benchmarks: Gorilla APIBench, Spider 2.0, WebArena, and InterCode. Our central finding is a well-supported negative result: despite generating non-trivial weight matrices, the 227.8M-parameter hypernetwork provides no measurable improvement over few-shot prompting alone. Comprehensive ablation studies reveal that few-shot examples contribute +21.5% to performance and documentation contributes +5.0%, while the hypernetwork adds 0%. A 3B model with well-designed prompts achieves 79.7% of GPT-5’s average performance at 10 × lower latency. Error analysis across 722 failure cases spanning all shot counts (0–5) shows that at the 5-shot configuration (106 failures), failure modes are task-dependent: schema-heavy tasks (Spider 2.0, WebArena) show near-zero format errors with remaining failures semantic, while format errors dominate on Gorilla (100%) and InterCode (70%). These findings redirect practitioners toward prompt engineering and example curation rather than complex adaptation architectures.