Repeated reference games test whether interlocutors replace their initially long descriptions with shorter, partner-specific conventions grounded in shared interaction history. Prior work shows that multimodal LLMs fail to become more efficient across rounds, although they align on the labels they use. How can we determine whether this alignment reflects partner-specific grounding rather than a shared task vocabulary? We address this question by comparing capable multimodal agent dyads with human dyads from the KTH Tangrams corpus. Our novel methodological contribution is a constrained pseudo-dyad baseline that matches the original referential task structure, but breaks partner history. This baseline enables us to test whether the observed label alignment depends on interaction with a specific partner. Across three analytic layers (task competence, description strategy, alignment dynamics), we find clear differences. Humans reduce effort through entrainment, compressing descriptions and increasing label alignment with partners. Agents instead maintain fixed effort levels, producing verbose descriptions from round one, with near-ceiling label overlap that is statistically indistinguishable between real and pseudo dyads. MLLMs thus achieve coordination without convention, succeeding by verbose description rather than by forming the compact, history-dependent referring expressions characteristic of human dialogue.