What the documents look like
Franchise filing management handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system. It does not handle specific site engineering. The main data sources are the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licences, store lists, and contract ledgers. The daily documents are franchise contracts, operations manuals, filing materials, and information disclosure documents. Operating reports and exception reviews are built around these documents. Checking the two stores one year condition and updating franchise information are time-consuming steps. Errors can lead to an order to file, franchise contract disputes, or administrative penalties.
This page covers only tool calls and plugins for operating reports and exception reviews within this category. Retrieval results and form entries do not constitute authorized execution. The update frequency of the source material does not change the tool-call configuration described here.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used throughout. The material text is: "Franchisor A signed a franchise contract with franchisee B on 1 March 2024; the contract status is signed. A's store list states two directly operated stores, both opened before 1 January 2023." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "A has met the two stores one year condition; the filing materials can be submitted." The request sits at the draft handover stage and has not been authorized for submission.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool call needs three pieces of information: the tool description, the tool parameters, and whether each parameter is required. The LLM decides whether to call the tool based on context semantics. For system modules the parameters are fixed. For plugins the parameters are configurable. When a tool has no required parameters, the model may fabricate a parameter. When a tool has required parameters and the context lacks a suitable value, the model may not call the tool, and prompts can guide the user to supply the value.
In advanced orchestration, connecting a tool to the tool call module separates tool input from ordinary input and allows editing the description so the call timing is more precise. The guidance is to add tools in small numbers and tune before expanding. The tool call termination node ends the current call: it does not call other tools and does not call the AI to summarize tool results. Custom variables extend inputs for nodes that are not treated as tool parameters or cannot be called as tools.
For this category, the tool description must state that the input is filing materials and the contract ledger and that the output is an exception list. The contract status, store opening dates, and material list are plugin-configurable parameters. The draft sentence above is a candidate output that a reviewer must check against the source text, not an authorization to submit.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting on this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | States input as filing materials and contract ledger, output as exception list | Compare description against source text; confirm it names conditions where the tool should not be called |
| Tool parameters | Contract status, store opening date, material list as plugin-configurable parameters | Check each parameter description and required flag against the parameter table |
| Missing required parameter | Guide the user to supply the value through prompts; do not assume the model will call | Observe whether the actual request carries the parameter; record a non-call when absent |
| Tool connection | Connect only the tools needed for this page; tune a small set first | Inspect connection points and description edit records |
| Tool call termination | Placed at the end of the review flow to end the current call | Confirm no AI summary output follows termination |
| Custom variable | Add a variable description for the store list node | Check the variable description matches the actual node input |
This page assumes a trial starting value of "more than 3 exception items triggers manual review." The reason for choosing this value is that it makes normal and exception cases distinguishable in the paper sample. The comparison object is the number of exception items actually listed in the sample. This value is an assumption for this exercise and is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Writing the tool description as a generic statement without input conditions or conditions where the tool should not be called. Check: take the source material text and the description text, compare whether the description covers states such as "signed" and "not authorized," and observe whether a call occurs for an unauthorized request.
- Assuming the model will call the tool when a required parameter is missing. Check: take the draft sentence and the parameter table, compare whether the required parameter exists in the context, observe whether the actual request carries that parameter, and record a non-call when it is absent.
- Treating retrieval results or form entries as authorized execution. Check: take the sample request and the authorization status field, compare "draft handover" with "authorized submission," observe whether a submission action appears, and record the item as pending verification when authorization is absent.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the material text "Franchisor A signed a franchise contract with franchisee B on 1 March 2024; the contract status is signed." Compare the draft sentence "A has met the two stores one year condition." Observe whether the store list states two directly operated stores with opening dates earlier than 1 March 2023. In the sample, the directly operated stores opened before 1 January 2023, which satisfies the one year condition. The two stores one year condition also requires complete evidence of the number of directly operated stores and the operating period. The sample provides only part of these fields; the remainder is recorded as pending verification.
- Verification two: input the draft sentence and the authorization status "draft handover." Compare whether an authorized submission field exists. Observe whether a submission action appears. The expected result is that no submission action appears and the request remains pending review. Pending review does not demonstrate that operating permission is absent.
- Verification three: input a paper empty result []. Compare whether downstream nodes are designed for an empty result. Observe whether a fabricated rule retrieval return appears. The expected result is that the empty result is carried downstream, and no claim is made that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together. Check identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation. Retrieval does not handle permission or entity isolation.
This function has been checked against public technical facts for identifying relevant content in documents. The page is written independently and does not require copying a fixed five-row table.