Large Language Models demonstrate strong capabilities in single-turn instruction following but suffer from Lost-in-Conversation (LiC), a degradation in performance as information is revealed progressively in multi-turn settings. Motivated by the current progress on Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), we propose Curriculum Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Accuracy and Abstention Rewards (RLAAR), a framework that encourages models not only to generate correct answers, but also to judge the solvability of questions in the multi-turn conversation setting. Our approach employs a competence-gated curriculum that incrementally increases dialogue difficulty (in terms of instruction shards), stabilizing training while promoting reliability. Using multi-turn, on-policy rollouts and a mixed-reward system, RLAAR teaches models to balance problem-solving with informed abstention, reducing premature answering behaviors that cause LiC. Evaluated on LiC benchmarks, RLAAR significantly mitigates LiC performance decay (62.6% to 75.1%) and improves calibrated abstention rates (33.5% to 73.4%). Together, these results provide a practical recipe for building multi-turn reliable and trustworthy LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning and tool-use capabilities, yet they often fail in real-world tool-interactions due to incorrect parameterization, poor tool selection, or misinterpretation of user intent. These issues often stem from an incomplete understanding of user goals and inadequate comprehension of tool documentation. While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has proven effective for enhancing reasoning in general contexts, our analysis reveals that free-form CoT is insufficient and sometimes counterproductive for structured function-calling tasks. To address this, we introduce a curriculum-inspired framework that leverages structured reasoning templates to guide LLMs through more deliberate step-by-step instructions for generating function callings. Experimental results show that our method reduces tool-use errors, achieving 3–12% relative improvements over strong baselines across diverse model series and approaches. Moreover, our framework enhances the robustness, interpretability, and transparency of tool-using agents, advancing the development of more reliable AI assistants for real-world applications.