AI agents combine LLMs with external tools to solve complex tasks. While tools extend agents’ capabilities, improper permissions introduce risks such as indirect prompt injection and tool misuse. We characterize these failures as unbalanced tool-driven agency, a unified view in which agents either retain unnecessary permissions (excessive agency) or fail to invoke required tools (insufficient agency), increasing risk and reducing performance. We introduce AgenTRIM, a framework that addresses this imbalance without altering agent reasoning, through complementary offline and online stages. Offline, it reconstructs the agent’s tool interface from code and validates tool behavior via controlled executions and trace analysis. At runtime, it enforces per-step least-privilege access through adaptive capability filtering and isolated validation of tool calls, implicitly decomposing tasks without explicit planning. On the AgentDojo benchmark, AgenTRIM substantially reduces attack success while improving task performance over the baseline, unlike other leading defenses. To assess robustness beyond prompt injection, we conduct additional experiments covering description-based attacks and policy enforcement. Together, these results establish AgenTRIM as a general, capability-preserving framework for mitigating tool-driven risks in LLM-based agents.

Agentic AI systems, which build on Large Language Models (LLMs) and interact with tools and memory, have rapidly advanced in capability and scope. Yet, since LLMs have been shown to struggle in multilingual settings, typically resulting in lower performance and reduced safety, agentic systems risk inheriting these limitations. This raises concerns about the accessibility of such systems, as users interacting in languages other than English may encounter unreliable or security-critical agent behavior. Despite growing interest in evaluating agentic AI and recent initial efforts toward multilingual interaction, existing benchmarks do not yet provide a comprehensive, multi-domain, security-aware evaluation of multilingual agentic systems. To address this gap, we propose MAPS, a multilingual benchmark suite designed to evaluate agentic AI systems across diverse languages and tasks. MAPS builds on four widely used agentic benchmarks — GAIA (real-world tasks), SWE-Bench (code generation), MATH (mathematical reasoning), and the Agent Security Benchmark (security). We translate each dataset into eleven diverse languages, resulting in 805 unique tasks and 9,660 total language-specific instances - enabling a systematic analysis of the Multilingual Effect on AI agents’ performance and robustness. Empirically, we observe a degradation in both performance and security when transitioning from English to other languages, with severity varying by task and correlating with the amount of translated input. This work establishes the first standardized evaluation framework for multilingual agentic AI, encouraging future research towards equitable, reliable, and accessible agentic AI. https://huggingface.co/datasets/Fujitsu-FRE/MAPS

An Agentic AI Workflow (AAW), also known as an LLM-based multi-agent system, is an autonomous system that assembles several LLM-based agents to work collaboratively towards a shared goal. The high autonomy, widespread adoption, and growing interest in such AAWs highlight the need for a deeper understanding of their operations, from both quality and security aspects. To this day, there are no existing methods to assess the influence of each agent on the AAW’s final output. Adopting techniques from related fields is not feasible since existing methods perform only static structural analysis, which is unsuitable for inference time execution. We present Counterfactual-based Agent Influence Ranker (CAIR) - the first method for assessing the influence level of each agent on the AAW’s output and determining which agents are the most influential. By performing counterfactual analysis, CAIR provides a task-agnostic analysis that can be used both offline and at inference time. We evaluate CAIR using an AAWs dataset of our creation, containing 30 different use cases with 230 different functionalities. Our evaluation showed that CAIR produces consistent rankings, outperforms baseline methods, and can easily enhance the effectiveness and relevancy of downstream tasks.