What the documents look like
Price and display audits take place during day-to-day store operation, where the central concern is continued execution of a standard rather than a one-off launch exercise. Materials accumulate weekly or monthly. A supervision system records store visit results, a POS price list reflects the price actually charged at the register, store cameras and visit photographs serve as evidence, and a headquarters promotion calendar states the price and display requirements in force for the period. The working documents are store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices. Within a contract and transaction material comparison task these materials become comparison objects: whether a price tag list and a promotion calendar carry mutually exclusive values in the same field, and whether the issue of a rectification notice and the store receipt sit inside one authorization chain.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool call is decided by the model from the tool description and the parameter descriptions. System module parameters are fixed; plug-in parameters are configurable. Where a required parameter exists and no suitable value is present in the context, the model may decline to call the tool, and a prompt can guide the user to supply the parameter. A model that supports function calling can call several tools at once. In advanced orchestration the available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the documented advice is to tune a small number of tools before adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current call, stops further tool calls and stops the AI summary of tool results. A custom variable can add a parameter description for a node that is not treated as a tool parameter, so the tool call can reach the workflow behind it. Retrieval results do not constitute authorization, and a similarity score carries no permission or entity isolation function.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a regional supervisor of a chain brand submits two materials in a paper exercise. The price tag list reads: "Store A, 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025, 500 ml bottled water priced at 2.5 yuan." The headquarters promotion calendar reads: "Store A, 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025, 500 ml bottled water at a promotion price of 2.0 yuan." A further handover request awaits a decision: "Store A's March bottled water price tag agrees with the promotion calendar, no rectification required." The comparison object is the price field for the same store, the same period and the same product specification; the two source texts hold mutually exclusive values in that field.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the input is store, period, product specification and price field, and state that the tool is not called when material is missing | Compare the description text and confirm it contains the input conditions and the no-call situation |
| Whether tool parameters are required | Mark store, period and product specification as required parameters | Inspect the parameter description and the required flag; when one is absent, observe whether the model requests completion |
| Number of connected tools | Assumed starting point of two, chosen so that a small set is tuned before expansion | Compare against the connected tool list and confirm tools were not added in a large batch at once |
| Parameter completion method | Prompt-guided completion of a missing store or period | Check the actual request parameters after completion in the conversation |
| Termination node position | Placed after the price tag list reading tool | Inspect the connection and confirm that on reaching this node no further tool call or AI summary occurs |
| Custom variable description | A parameter description written for the rectification notice node | Compare the description text with the node input |
The numbers above are assumed starting points for this exercise and are not official default values. The documentation does not give default values, upper limits or units, so configuration follows the fields actually available in the interface.
Three common errors
- Treating a parameter description as a guarantee of execution. A parameter description only explains what the parameter means; whether the model calls the tool still depends on the context. Check: input the hypothetical sample request with the product specification missing, compare whether the model requests completion, and observe whether a call occurs without completion.
- Treating a retrieval hit as passed authorization. A similarity score carries no permission or entity isolation function. Check: input the Store A material from the hypothetical sample, compare the store identifier on the returned records, and observe whether records from other stores appear.
- Writing a pending review state as completed rectification. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission and does not equal completed rectification. Check: input the unsigned rectification notice from the hypothetical sample, compare the notice status field with the receipt field, and observe whether an absent receipt is written as closed.
How to verify the setup
- Input the two source texts and the sentence awaiting a decision from the hypothetical sample above, and compare the price field for the same store, the same period and the same product specification. Where the two source texts hold mutually exclusive values, the expected output identifies a conflict in that field and keeps a "to be verified" state. An output that declares agreement does not meet the condition.
- Input the handover request with the product specification missing, and compare whether the model initiates parameter completion. The expected result is a completion request, and after completion the parameters contain store, period and product specification. A tool call made without completion does not meet the condition.
- Input the unsigned rectification notice from the hypothetical sample, and compare the notice status with the receipt field. The expected output records "not supported" and preserves the evidence gap. An output that states rectification is complete does not meet the condition. System errors or automatic business actions not described in the documentation are not asserted here; only actual observations are recorded.