What this category's data looks like
The materials for primary and secondary school timetables and after-school service scheduling mainly come from three types of ledgers: the master timetable, the teacher assignment table, and the after-school service project table. The update cadence advances by week or by semester node, and the fields center on course name, assigned teacher, class, number of class hours, start and end dates, signature, and receipt. The master timetable plays the role of the school-wide time-slot and class distribution; the teacher assignment table plays the role of the correspondence between teachers and subjects; the after-school service project table plays the role of project name, number of participants, and implementation date. When the three types of materials enter the tool calling step, the tool node first reads the fields and dates, and then subsequent nodes compare whether the names, quantities, and dates are consistent.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call, and the node executes), outputting the tool call result (the input parameters and return in the call record). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification. The model judges whether to call the tool this time based on the tool description, the parameter descriptions, and whether the parameters are required.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Master timetable | Whether the fields, dates, and signature correspond to the teacher assignment table | Open the tool call record and verify the class, course name, and date in the input parameters against the returned fields; check whether the toolChoice value is consistent with the call record |
| Teacher assignment table | Whether the name and number of class hours of the same teacher and same course are consistent with the master timetable | Run a test query that lacks the assigned teacher field to see whether it asks a follow-up question first; verify the value of functionCall in the input parameters |
| After-school service project table | Whether the project name, participation count, implementation date, and receipt signature are consistent with the ledger | Open the parameter configuration one by one and verify the description and whether it is required; confirm that the returned result does not contain values that do not exist in the materials |
| Tool calling node connection | Whether the diamond interface is connected to the target tool and the node status is readable | Verify the diamond connection and node status on the canvas, and confirm that both toolChoice and functionCall appear in the call record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and number of class hours of the same course do not match between the master timetable and the teacher assignment table. Cause: The two materials are maintained separately, the fields are not aligned, and after the model calls according to the description, the returned result directly enters the comparison.
- Symptom: The implementation date of the after-school service project table is inconsistent with the ledger version. Cause: The version is not synchronized, the old version is still read in the tool call record, and the discrepancy list does not indicate the version source.
- Symptom: The teacher assignment table lacks a signature or receipt, but the call record still returns complete fields. Cause: Whether the parameters are required does not correspond to the actual fields in the materials, and when there are no required parameters, the model may fabricate values on its own.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run a test query that lacks required parameters, verify the input parameters and return in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description; at the same time, verify whether toolChoice and functionCall appear in the record.
Business test: use a real record to find fields that are inconsistent with the ledger, compare the names, quantities, and dates in the three materials—the master timetable, the teacher assignment table, and the after-school service project table—item by item, mark the discrepancies, and submit them to the reviewer for confirmation and write-back.
- Open the tool node description field, check whether this description can be understood when read on its own, and confirm that the parameter descriptions and whether it is required correspond to the material fields.
- Verify the diamond connection and node status on the canvas, run a test query that lacks a field, and observe whether the returned result contains values that do not exist in the materials.