What the documents look like
Customer-service knowledge base maintenance is preparatory question-and-answer material work. It does not approve refunds directly. The daily materials include FAQ entries, reply-script templates, product parameter tables and escalation tickets. The contract and transaction material comparison task requires extracting the subject, object, status and validity scope from these materials, then checking them field by field against a draft reply or a handover request.
The tool call and plugin layer at this step carries confirmed comparison rules and a confirmed material reading scope to the model. The model decides whether to call a tool based on the tool introduction and the parameter introductions. The call result is returned to the AI for summarised output. Material updates occur weekly or monthly; this page does not design a synchronisation mechanism around that frequency.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used throughout this page. The source text to be checked reads: "Party A: Sample Trading Co., Ltd.; Party B: Sample Logistics Co., Ltd.; Contract object: standard express service for the period 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025; Contract status: signed by both parties, effective date 1 March 2025." The draft sentence reads: "This contract took effect on 1 March 2025, and Party B shall complete all deliveries before 31 March 2025." The request to be judged reads: "Please confirm the effective date of this contract and generate a handover note." This sample is for paper checking only. It does not represent a real customer or an actual test.
Constraints at the tool calls step
The tool introduction tells the model what the tool is for. It needs to state the input conditions and the situations in which the tool should not be called. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. A parameter introduction does not by itself guarantee execution. When a suitable required parameter is absent, the model may not call the tool, so the missing value needs to be completed through interaction and the actual request then checked.
In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module. Starting with a small number of tools and tuning them first matches the documented guidance. The tool call termination node ends the current tool call; it also stops the AI from summarising the tool result. A retrieval result or a form value collected is not business authorisation. Approval, database writes and external synchronisation each need their own downstream implementation.
For this sample, the tool introduction should state that it reads the subject, object, status and validity scope from contract and transaction materials. The plugin parameter for "material scope" is marked as required in this hypothetical starting point. One material reading tool is connected. The termination node is placed after the material reading tool. A custom tool variable is given a parameter description for "comparison fields". An interaction prompt asks the user to supply a missing required parameter.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction text | State that it reads subject, object, status and validity scope from contract and transaction materials | Compare field by field against the sample source text; check whether the introduction covers all four items |
| Plugin parameter introduction | Mark the "material scope" parameter as required | Check the parameter source and the actual request; when a suitable required value is absent the model may not call |
| Number of connected tools | Connect only one material reading tool in this exercise | Consistent with the documented guidance to tune a small number of tools; observe whether the call timing is precise |
| Termination node position | Place it after the material reading tool | Compare against the sample request; confirm that no AI summary follows termination |
| Custom tool variable | Fill in a parameter description for "comparison fields" | Compare against the draft sentence; confirm the variable input maps to subject, object, status and validity scope |
| Interaction completion prompt | Prompt the user to supply the missing required parameter | Compare against the sample request; check whether a missing value triggers a completion request, and inspect the actual request for fabricated values |
Three common errors
- Writing the tool introduction as a general description without stating input conditions and situations where the tool should not be called. To check, input the sample source text and compare whether the tool introduction covers subject, object, status and validity scope. If any of the four is absent, the call timing is not precise.
- Treating the parameter introduction as an execution guarantee, assuming the model will call once the parameter is filled in. To check, input the sample request and compare whether the required parameter appears in the actual request. If the parameter is absent and the model does not call, record the pending value and the actual call result rather than treating the non-call alone as an execution failure.
- Using the stated contract effective date to infer a deadline for all deliveries. The source text states the effective date as 1 March 2025, and that date can be retained. The claim that all deliveries must be completed before 31 March 2025 has no corresponding clause; record it separately as pending verification. Retrieval or a form does not supply execution authorisation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare "effective date 1 March 2025" in the draft sentence against "effective date 1 March 2025" in the source text. If both share the same subject, the same period and the same field, and the values match, the condition is met. The service period is recorded, but it does not equal a deadline for completing all deliveries. That deadline is not stated and is recorded separately as unsupported.
- Input the sample request "Please confirm the effective date of this contract and generate a handover note." Compare whether the request contains the required parameter "material scope". If it is absent, observe whether the model guides completion through interaction. If the model calls directly, record it as a risk of parameter fabrication.
- Input the sample source text and the tool call termination setting. Compare whether the termination node is placed after the material reading tool. If, after termination, no AI summary is called and the tool result is not returned to the AI, the condition is met. If an AI summary output still appears after termination, record that termination did not take effect.
Fields that are unstated, or supported only by related-stage evidence, remain pending verification. Do not supply authorisation or effective clauses to fill the gap. A pending review does not show that operating permission is absent. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library applies only to the association scope documented for that library and does not extend to external systems. Empty-result downstream design can be checked with the paper input []; this does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval will return [].