What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selection happens before a broadcast. The decision concerns whether a product can be sold and whether it suits on-camera presentation. The working materials are supplier files, testing-agency reports, platform negative lists, and historical return rates. The routine documents are sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualifications, and prohibited-sale lists. These materials update weekly and per item. Operating reports and exception reviews consolidate fields from those documents into checkable records. Tool calls and plugins carry the retrieval and status return in that step.
Two features of this category shape the task. First, the decision point sits before the broadcast, so the report must show whether a product is cleared for sale and suitable for demonstration, not how a past broadcast performed. Second, the evidence arrives from several document types with different owners, so a report line is only as reliable as the specific field it draws from. A sample evaluation form, a testing report, and a prohibited-sale check are separate records with separate completion states.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool call is decided by the tool description, the parameter descriptions, and whether each parameter is required. With no required parameters, the model may call the tool even when the context holds no suitable value, and it may fabricate a parameter. With required parameters and no suitable value in context, the model may decline to call; a prompt can guide the user to supply the value. In advanced orchestration, available tools connect to the tool call module, and the documentation advises starting with a small number of tools and tuning before adding more. The tool call termination node ends the current call, stops further tool calls, and stops the AI from summarizing tool results. Custom tool variables extend inputs for nodes not treated as tool parameters.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a selection team's paper materials state that "the sample evaluation form submitted by Supplier A records batch A-01; the testing report is dated 10 March 2025; the prohibited-sale list check conclusion field is empty." A draft sentence awaiting review reads: "This sample has completed the prohibited-sale list check and can enter broadcast scheduling." The materials do not state the checker, the check time, or a check conclusion. The completion status in the draft sentence and the scheduling authorization both remain to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value on this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State that the tool retrieves fields from sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualifications, and prohibited-sale lists | Compare the description text and confirm input conditions and cases where the tool should not be called are written in |
| Tool parameters | For plugin parameters, fill in each parameter description and whether it is required | Check that parameter descriptions are readable by the model and that required parameters are listed |
| Required parameter | Batch number set as required; a hypothetical starting point for this exercise | The starting point tests whether a call is skipped when the value is absent; compare call behavior against a request that includes a batch number |
| Tool connections | Connect only the tools needed for report retrieval | In advanced orchestration, confirm the connection points and keep the tool count small |
| Tool call termination | Place after the retrieval tool | Confirm that reaching this node stops further tool calls and stops AI summarization |
| Custom tool variable | Write a parameter description for the prohibited-sale list check node | Check that the description matches the node's actual input |
Three common errors
- Writing the tool description as general prose without stating when the tool should not be called. Check by entering the sample materials and observing whether the model still issues a retrieval call when the batch number is absent. A call under that condition indicates the description or parameter constraints are insufficient.
- Treating a parameter description as a guarantee of execution. In the sample, the prohibited-sale list conclusion field is empty. If the report outputs that field as "checked," the input and output disagree, and the parameter may have been filled by the model itself.
- Treating tool call termination as completed authorization. The sample draft sentence says the item can enter broadcast scheduling, while the materials state no scheduling authorization. Compare the draft sentence against the source text; an absent authorization field is recorded as pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical sample text and the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence's claim that the prohibited-sale list check is complete against the fact that the conclusion field is empty in the materials. If the output does not mark the claim as pending verification, the condition is not met.
- Enter a request without a batch number and compare whether a retrieval call is issued. The documentation states that the model may decline to call when a suitable required parameter is missing. A call that still proceeds and generates a batch number fails the parameter constraint.
- Enter a request containing batch number A-01 and compare the returned fields against the sample material fields. If the returned testing report date differs from 10 March 2025, or the prohibited-sale list conclusion is filled with a value, the retrieval result fails the check condition. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization; scheduling, approval, and external synchronization require separate system implementation, and this page does not claim they were performed.