What the documents look like
Warehouse picking, checking and packing handles outbound orders, a different operating stage from supplier arrival and put-away. This page works with four document types: wave picking lists, checking records, electronic waybills and packaging material sheets. Data sources named in the brief are the WMS, the order system, the electronic waybill platform and weighing equipment. Updates occur per order and per hour, so any tool call that queries or writes back must first establish which document and which time window the request refers to. The consequences of wrong or missing shipments and damaged parcels fall on after-sales compensation, so report and review outputs must trace back to a specific document rather than substituting an aggregate for document-level evidence.
A wave picking list may state a wave identifier, a picker, an order count and a status such as picked but not checked. A checking record may state a single order number, a checker, a received piece count and a status. These are separate documents with separate scopes. A wave-level statement cannot be supported by a record that covers one order number inside that wave.
Constraints at the tool calls step
Tool execution is decided by the tool introduction, the parameter introduction and whether a parameter is required. A tool without parameters is judged directly from its introduction. When a required parameter has no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call the tool; prompt wording can guide the user to supply the value, and the actual request is then checked. In advanced orchestration, connecting an available tool to the tool call module separates tool input from ordinary input and allows the introduction to be edited so the call timing is tighter. The official guidance is to start with a small number of tools and tune before adding more.
The tool call termination node ends the current call. After it runs, no further tools are called and the AI is not asked to summarize tool results. Custom tool variables extend variable input for nodes that are not treated as tool parameters, by supplying a parameter description so the tool call can reach that node and the workflow after it.
Hypothetical drill sample: a wave picking list reads "Wave W-0715, picker A, 12 orders, status: picked, not checked." A checking record reads "Order 8801, checker B, 3 pieces received, status: check passed." A draft sentence reads "All 12 orders in this wave have completed checking and can proceed to packing." The checking record covers only order 8801; the other 11 orders have no checking evidence, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or checking method on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Tool introduction | State the purpose, the input conditions and the situations where the tool should not be called | The introduction affects the model's call decision |
| Tool parameters | Check system module parameters as fixed; check plugin parameters item by item | A parameter introduction is not a guarantee of execution |
| Required parameters | Mark whether required; when missing, guide completion and check the request | Without a suitable value the model may not call |
| Tool connection | Connect the needed tools in advanced orchestration; tune with a small set first | Connection separates tool input automatically |
| Tool call termination | Attach after a tool when the current call should end | After termination the AI summary is not called |
| Custom tool variables | Add variable descriptions for nodes not treated as parameters | Extends tool variable input |
Hypothetical trial starting point: set the tool count on this page to 3, because the official guidance is to tune a small number of tools; the comparison object is the call record when more tools are connected, observing whether introductions and parameters are matched correctly.
Three common errors
- Treating order 8801 in the checking record as evidence for all 12 orders in the wave. Input is the two document texts and the draft sentence; the comparison is between the wave scope and the order-number scope; the observable result is that the draft sentence exceeds the coverage of the record.
- Treating a tool parameter introduction as certain execution. Input is a plugin parameter introduction; the comparison is whether that parameter appears in the actual request; the observable result is that the introduction exists while the request omits the parameter.
- Treating a retrieval result or a filled form as authorization. Input is a query return and an unsigned handover sheet; the comparison is the authorization status field; the observable result is that pending review does not equal approved.
How to verify the setup
- Input the wave text and the draft sentence above, compare the scope claimed by the draft sentence with the order numbers actually covered by the checking record, and treat "all checking completed" as satisfied only when the checking record covers all 12 orders.
- Input a tool introduction containing a required parameter and a context lacking that parameter, compare whether the actual request carries the parameter, and treat the condition as satisfied only when the parameter appears with a value taken from context; when it does not appear, record the call as not made.
- Input a query request and a handover material marked "pending review," compare the requested action with the material status, and treat handover as executable only when the material status is approved; record pending review as a gap. When retrieval returns nothing, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule must return empty.