What the documents look like
Peak-sale warehousing and delivery scheduling turns on short-term peak capacity and the arrangement of people, vehicles and sites. This differs from routine multi-warehouse inventory synchronization, which follows a steadier balancing logic. The materials handled here are peak-sale forecast tables, staff rosters, courier support plans and exception daily reports. In the document comparison task these materials serve as input sources for tool calls. The brief gives an update frequency of per campaign and daily; this page does not derive batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that.
The tool call node decides whether to invoke a tool from the tool introduction, the parameter introduction and whether each parameter is required. The introduction states the tool's purpose and the situations in which it should not be called. Parameters divide into fixed parameters for system modules and configurable parameters for plugins. When a suitable required parameter is absent, the model may not call the tool, and prompt wording can guide the user to supply it. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the guidance is to debug with a small number of tools first. The tool call termination node ends the current call, does not call other tools, and does not call the AI to summarize tool results.
Constraints at the tool calls step
Document comparison requires placing the source material text and the proposed sentence or handover request side by side, field by field. A tool call does not itself constitute authorization, and retrieval does not constitute authorization. Semantic recall and relevance do not carry permission or entity isolation; a similarity setting cannot exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together, so the identifier is checked first, non-matching items are excluded, and actual observations are recorded. The optional paths shown in the overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires the model and must be enabled by configuration. Interaction waiting, record status and hidden dialogue boxes are read as documented; no corresponding control switches, submission counts, automatic judgments or snapshot guarantees are invented.
Hypothetical exercise sample
Source material text for comparison (hypothetical, not a real record): "Party A: Example warehousing service provider; Party B: Example e-commerce supply chain party. Contract number H-2024-001, signing date 10 May 2024, covering warehousing and delivery scheduling services during the peak-sale period, quotation valid until 30 June 2024. The staff roster (hypothetical) states 12 temporary sorting positions from 1 June to 18 June 2024."
Proposed sentence to be assessed (hypothetical): "The contract has taken effect, and Party B has obtained scheduling authority for the temporary sorting positions from 1 June to 18 June."
Assessment points: signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts; a quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period; a pending review does not demonstrate the absence of operating authority. The source text above does not state a contract effectiveness clause or a scheduling authorization clause, so "has taken effect" and "has obtained scheduling authority" in the proposed sentence are both unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relation to this page's materials | Setting or checking method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | States the comparison tool's purpose and the situations in which it should not be called | Write that the input is the source material text and the proposed sentence, and the output is a field-by-field comparison result |
| Tool parameters | Plugin configurable parameters carry material fields | Check the parameter introduction and whether each is required; do not treat the parameter introduction as a guarantee of execution |
| Required parameter completion | The model may not call the tool when a suitable required parameter is absent | Complete it through interaction and check the actual request content |
| Tool connection | In advanced orchestration, connect the comparison tool to the tool call module | Debug with a small number of tools first, then add more |
| Tool call termination | Ends the current call, with no further tool calls and no AI summary | Attach it after the comparison tool to avoid extra summary output |
| Custom tool variables | Extend inputs for nodes not treated as tool parameters | Fill in the corresponding parameter description so the tool call reaches that node |
Hypothetical trial starting point for this page: restrict the tool introduction to "compare only the subject, period and fields in the source material text and the proposed sentence." This starting point is chosen because the task on this page is document comparison alone, a narrower scope than general question answering. This is a hypothetical value, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a similarity score as a permission or entity filter. Error behaviour: assuming a relevance setting can exclude unauthorized records. Executable check: input the hypothetical sample source text together with an unrelated business query, compare whether the returned results are similar text only, and observe whether any authorization judgment field appears. Retrieval does not constitute authorization.
- Treating a pending review or a quotation validity period as effectiveness or a supply period. Error behaviour: the proposed sentence states "has taken effect" and "has obtained scheduling authority." Executable check: input the hypothetical sample source text and the proposed sentence, compare whether the source states an effectiveness clause and an authorization clause, and observe whether the missing fields are marked unsupported. What is not stated is unsupported.
- Associating libraries built on different vector models. Error behaviour: directly comparing the recall results of two libraries. Executable check: check the vector model identifier first, exclude non-matching items, and record actual observations. Different models cannot be associated together, and no inference is drawn about missed recall or redundant results.
How to verify the setup
- Tool introduction and parameter check. Input: the hypothetical sample source text and the proposed sentence. Compare: whether the tool introduction states the input conditions and the situations in which it should not be called, and whether the parameter introduction and required flags match the actual request. Observe: the parameters appearing in the call request correspond to material fields, and a missing required parameter is recorded as a non-call.
- Proposed sentence assessment check. Input: the hypothetical sample source text and the proposed sentence. Compare: same subject, same period, same field. Observe: when the source does not state effectiveness and authorization clauses, the proposed sentence is marked unsupported; only clearly mutually exclusive values in the same field are recorded as a contradiction.
- Retrieval scope check. Input: an explicit paper empty result [] and the target retrieval scope. Compare: whether the downstream design receiving the empty result handles it as empty input. Observe: no claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []; for different models, check the identifier first and exclude non-matching items, and do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.