What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the compulsory education dropout prevention and control scenario. The materials include three types: dropout risk ledgers, persuasion-to-return records, and home visit records. Ledger fields include student name, risk level, determination date, and responsible person's signature; persuasion-to-return records include persuasion time, method, result, and parent receipt; home visit records include home visit date, teacher's signature, parent's signature, and remarks. Materials are updated weekly and summarized at month-end. When entering the tool calling and plugin feature, the ledger provides the statistical base, while persuasion-to-return records and home visit records provide process evidence; together, the three support verification of the progress table and the statistical scope statement. The field characteristics are dense information of three types: dates, quantities, and signatures. It is common for the same record to have mismatched names, quantities, and dates across different materials, versions not synchronized, and missing signatures or receipts.
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 progress table and statistical scope statement are then completed by subsequent AI nodes or manual verification. Based on the tool description, parameter description, and whether parameters are required, the model determines whether to call the tool this time.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Dropout risk ledger | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the statistical base can be verified | Open the tool node to introduce the fields, and check whether the ledger fields correspond to the parameter description; run a test with a question missing the signature field to see whether it asks a follow-up question first |
| Persuasion-to-return records | Whether the persuasion time, method, result, and parent receipt match the ledger | Check the parameter description and whether required one by one, and check whether the dates and quantities in the persuasion-to-return records can be correctly retrieved by the tool; check the diamond-shaped interface connections and node status |
| Home visit records | Whether the home visit date, teacher's signature, and parent's signature are consistent with the ledger and persuasion-to-return records | Check the diamond-shaped connections and node status on the canvas, and confirm the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the call record; use one week of records to verify the totals |
| Statistical scope statement | Whether the scope is written in the header, and whether exceptional situations are clearly stated | Check the inputs and returns in the tool call result, and confirm that the record count matches the statistical count; check whether toolChoice and functionCall are called according to the description |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The dates and quantities of the same persuasion-to-return record do not match between the ledger and the home visit records. Cause: The two materials' versions are not synchronized, and when the tool is called, old version parameter values are used, causing values that do not exist in the business materials to appear in the returned result.
- Phenomenon: Home visit records lack a parent signature or receipt but are still included in the total during statistics. Cause: Whether parameters are required does not correspond to the business material fields, and the model does not ask a follow-up question but directly calls according to the description, causing records missing signatures to enter the statistics.
- Phenomenon: After multiple tools are chained, results cross-contaminate each other, and the quantities of persuasion-to-return records and home visit records are mixed together. Cause: The tool description does not specify the scope of the returned result, and when the model judges the call based on the description, it does not distinguish the source of the materials.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run a test with a question missing required parameters, check 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, check whether the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the record conform to the tool description and parameter description.
Business test: use one week of records to verify the totals, and see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated; the record count matches the statistical count, the scope is written in the header, and exceptions with missing signatures or receipts are listed separately.
- Open the parameter configuration one by one, check the parameter description and whether required, and confirm that they correspond to fields that actually exist in the dropout risk ledger, persuasion-to-return records, and home visit records.
- Check the diamond-shaped connections and node status on the canvas, and confirm that the tool calling node is connected to the target tool; run a test with a question missing that field to see whether it asks a follow-up question first rather than directly fabricating.