What this category's data looks like
In the course selection, scheduling, and classroom resource allocation scenario, materials fall into three categories: course offering plans, scheduling tables, and course selection rules. Course offering plans come from the academic affairs department and are updated by semester; their fields include course name, course code, planned enrollment, offering unit, and signature field. Scheduling tables are exported by the scheduling system and iterated weekly; their fields include class time, classroom number, capacity, week numbers, and receipt status. Course selection rules are jointly maintained by academic affairs and departments and updated by selection round; their fields include selection target, enrollment cap, prerequisite conditions, and effective date. When these three types of materials enter the tool calling node, the course offering plan serves as the baseline ledger, the scheduling table serves as the object to be verified, and the course selection rules serve as constraints; the node decides whether to call based on the tool description and parameter descriptions, and returns the inputs and returns in the call record, while the discrepancy list is completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
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 inputs and returns in the call record). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Course offering plan | Whether the course name, planned enrollment, offering unit, and signature are consistent with the scheduling table | Open the tool node description field and check whether the description can be understood on its own; run a test with a question missing a required parameter, and verify the functionCall inputs and returns |
| Scheduling table | Whether the class time, classroom number, capacity, week numbers, and receipt are consistent with the course offering plan | Open each parameter configuration one by one and verify the parameter description and whether it is required; verify the diamond connectors and node status on the canvas, and record the toolChoice value |
| Course selection rules | Whether the selection target, enrollment cap, prerequisite conditions, and effective date are consistent with the course offering plan | Run a test with a question missing a field and see whether it asks a follow-up question first; check whether values that do not exist in the materials appear in the returned result |
| Tool calling node connections | The diamond interface is connected to the target tool, and the node status is readable | Verify the diamond connectors and node status on the canvas, and confirm that the tool description, parameter descriptions, and whether required all correspond to the material fields |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name or planned enrollment of the same course does not match between the course offering plan and the scheduling table. Cause: The two material versions are not synchronized; the scheduling table is iterated weekly while the course offering plan is updated by semester.
- Symptom: The scheduling table lacks a signature or receipt, and the effective date of the course selection rules is inconsistent with the course offering plan. Cause: The material circulation step was not written back, and the signature field and receipt status were not updated with the version.
- Symptom: The model does not call the tool and directly gives an answer, and values that do not exist in the materials appear in the returned result. Cause: The tool description or parameter descriptions are incomplete, and there is no suitable value for a required parameter in the context.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: run a test with a question missing a required parameter, verify the inputs and returns in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description; at the same time, verify the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the record.
Business test: use a real record to find a field that is inconsistent with the ledger, and hand it to the reviewer for confirmation and write-back.
- Open the tool node description field and check whether this description can be understood when taken out on its own; open each parameter configuration one by one and verify the description and whether required.
- Run a test with a question missing that field and see whether it asks a follow-up question first rather than directly fabricating; verify the diamond connectors and node status on the canvas.