Tool-using LLM agents process untrusted content, maintain memory, delegate across agents, and invoke side-effecting tools. Existing prompt-injection evaluations typically summarize security with terminal attack or policy outcomes, but equal endpoints can conceal different post-exposure traces and different losses of authorized utility. We introduce ContainmentBench, a sandboxed, trace-based benchmark that separately measures benchmark-defined endpoint policy compliance, instrumented logged propagation, recovery instrumentation, and authorized structured-action completion. In a pre-specified 17,640-rollout study with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, all 600 matched active-tainted pairs comparing taint-only and intent-aware enforcement have the same zero committed-harm outcome, yet 73.5% differ in logged trajectory or utility. Taint-only enforcement completes only 0.1642 of authorized tainted workflows; a trusted-ledger policy raises completion to 0.8567, while a strong tool-boundary baseline reaches 0.9233 under the same observed endpoint-policy outcomes. We also find that aggregate logged-spread rankings change with evidence-stage composition and denominator choice. These results show that a terminal policy label is not a sufficient statistic for operational post-exposure containment; evaluations should report endpoint, stage-stratified trajectory, and utility evidence separately, and should promote recovery evidence to comparative claims only where the corresponding controls are valid. The full-scale study is synthetic and single-model; the policy case additionally assumes a correct structured authorization ledger.

翻译：暂无翻译