DisasterBench: Benchmarking LLM Planning under Typed Tool Interface Constraints

Zhitong Chen, Kai Yin, Weifeng Zhang, Zhiyuan Wang, Xiangjue Dong, Chengkai Liu, Zhewei Liu, Yiming Xiao, Ali Mostafavi, James Caverlee/DisasterBench: Benchmarking LLM Planning under Typed Tool Interface ConstraintsUnknown

Disasters cause severe societal impacts, demanding rapid coordination of heterogeneous AI tools, from satellite analysis to flood prediction and damage assessment, into coherent multi-step workflows. As LLMs increasingly serve as orchestrators of such pipelines, effective coordination requires more than selecting semantically plausible tools: LLMs must generate executable workflows with correct parameter binding and dependency propagation. We introduce DisasterBench, a benchmark for evaluating structured multi-agent planning over semantically similar but operationally distinct disaster-response tools. To enable step-level failure attribution, we further propose First-Point-of-Failure (FPoF), which localizes the earliest root cause in a predicted workflow, separating primary errors from downstream cascading effects. Our evaluation reveals three findings: planning method effectiveness depends strongly on model capacity; tool mismatch and parameter-binding errors dominate first failures, revealing semantic grounding and execution consistency as distinct bottlenecks; and verbose intermediate reasoning can create instruction clash with structured output requirements, disrupting plan generation. Together, these findings highlight a fundamental gap between semantic reasoning and execution-grounded coordination, underscoring the need for planning frameworks that jointly model semantic intent, execution constraints, and workflow consistency. Code, data, and evaluation resources are available at: https://github.com/TamuChen18/DisasterBench_Open

benchmark

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed20h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

48 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

48Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 90 days0 +0.0%

30d90d1y

Commit activity · 52 weeksActive contributor activity

LowHigh

JunSepDecMarNow

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 48/100

Below average

Alternatives

crewai

26.1k · Multi-Agent

autogen

42.7k · Multi-Agent

smolagents

11.2k · Coding

openai-agents-python

9.4k · Multi-Agent

Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler20h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing