arxiv-2608-22472 SRC-0106 · paper

Small Reasoning Models are Instruction Followers in Function Calling

Created: 2026-08-23 · Ingested: 2026-09-15

Function calling represents the core capability of agentic large language models (LLMs). Existing research has focused on enhancing LLMs function-calling accuracy through fine-tuning, reinforcement learning (RL), and multi-agent frameworks, particularly for native function-calling LLMs. This work demonstrates that LLMs achieve superior accuracy in function calling in instruction-following contexts (i.e., standard user-assistant interactions) rather than a tool calling context. We introduce Instruction-Followed Function Calling (IFFC), a novel framework that decouples function-calling logic fro

In brief

Framing tool use as ordinary instruction-following, rather than using a model's native function-calling tokens and JSON schemas, raises function-calling accuracy in small models. The effect is largest for models with explicit reasoning traces enabled.

The IFFC framework moves tool routing out of the main QA model into a separate small reasoning model that receives tool definitions as a system instruction and answers as a normal assistant turn, with ReAct. Tested on BFCL V3 Live and Non-Live across Gemma-3 (1B, 4B, 12B), Phi-4 Mini, Qwen-3 (0.6B-8B), against native function calling (NFC) and prompt-based function calling (PFC).

Phi-4 Mini goes from 30.0 to 44.3 on Live; Qwen-3 4B Think reaches 86.7 Live and 94.1 Non-Live versus 82.8 PFC and 81.5 NFC. On Non-Live Simple/Multiple, Qwen-3 4B IFFC hits 96.0/97.5 against Claude 4.5 Sonnet NFC at 72.6/95.5 and GPT 5.2 at 72.9/88.0. Reasoning matters: Qwen-3 0.6B goes 22.9 to 57.7 Live with thinking on. Under Q4KM quantization, Qwen-3 4B Think holds 93.5 vs 94.1 at FP16, while Gemma-3 1B falls 23.9 to 8.7 and Qwen-3 0.6B NoThink 62.3 to 16.8.

The think/no-think toggle within 1 model family is a clean ablation of reasoning. Proprietary baselines are run only in NFC mode, so the comparison mixes paradigm and model. Latency of the extra sequential inference step is acknowledged but not measured, and results come from 1 benchmark family.

If you are deploying small models as tool routers, drop native tool tokens and keep the reasoning trace on.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-22, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsFor small open-weight models (0.6B-12B) on BFCL V3, presenting tool definitions as ordinary system-prompt instructions and having the model emit calls as normal assistant text yields higher function-calling accuracy than the model's native tool-call token/schema interface, with the largest gains in the smallest models and on parallel/multiple-call categories.