Repository navigation
Clarify tool execution and reaction reply contracts - #285
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Owner
Author
|
Confirmed: this change intentionally updates instruction text only. The |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The dialog instructions disagree about text beside tool calls and describe the reaction exception too broadly. The session engine carries text into a final reply only when every call in the batch is
react_to_message; text beside a mixed batch is not published.This change aligns the shared prompt, AI Farm prompt, and reaction tool description with that behavior. It also distinguishes native tool execution from user-requested code/JSON examples, uses explicit conditions for action and freshness tools, and states that
queueddoes not confirm artifact completion or delivery. Runtime execution and textual-call recovery remain unchanged.Validation:
cargo fmt --allandgit diff --checkpassed.cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets -- -D warningspassed.cargo test --workspace: 2,682 passed, 0 failed, 10 ignored.gemma-4-26b-hauhaucsthrough its existing GPU0 endpoint, with native tool schemas and no real tool side effects. The initial paired set scored 18/20 for both baseline and candidate. Four variants on six focused cases each scored 4/6. No regressions appeared in this sample; these results do not establish a native tool-calling accuracy improvement.The prompts clarify the existing protocol; they do not replace provider parsing or runtime validation. Production verification will use SAFE virtual dialogs after deployment.