工具调用原理：JSON Schema、tool_use 循环；不用框架手写 Agent Loop

面试题库

• function calling 的完整流程是怎样的？Walk me through the complete function calling flow.

  国内高频海外高频基础#tool-calling#agent-loop

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 题眼在「完整」两个字。大多数人答到「模型返回一个 tool_call、我执行、把结果给它」就停了，漏掉了两头——工具定义是怎么进到请求里的，以及结果回填之后循环凭什么继续。判据是你能不能把它讲成一个闭环，而不是一次单向调用。
  2. 顺着一次请求的生命周期走五步：第一步把 tools（name、description、JSON Schema 参数）一起放进请求，注意它每一轮都要重发；第二步模型返回 tool_calls，同时停止原因是 tool_calls；第三步你解析 arguments 并执行——arguments 是一段 JSON 文本而不是对象，要再解析一次；第四步把模型那条 assistant 消息原样追加回历史，再为每一个 tool_call 追加一条 role 为 tool 的消息，tool_call_id 逐个对上；第五步带着变长的 messages 再发一次，直到停止原因不再是 tool_calls。
  3. 结论要落到一句能划安全边界的话：模型不执行任何东西，它只输出一个结构化的「请求」，真正执行、校验、鉴权、审计的全是你的代码。而这个请求的内容归根结底来自用户输入，所以权限和额度绝不能指望模型自觉。
  4. 主动说三个最高频的 400，能立刻证明你真写过：漏掉模型那条带 tool_calls 的 assistant 消息、并行调用只回了一条 tool 消息、把 arguments 当对象直接取字段。
  5. 可以预期的追问：工具会不会一直占 token？会——tools 每一轮都要重发，十个工具一两千 token 再乘以循环步数，所以工具集要按场景动态裁剪，不是接得越多越好。
  6. 第二个追问：模型请求了一个不存在的工具怎么办？不要抛异常，把「没有这个工具，请从工具列表里重新选」当成一条正常的 tool 消息回传，模型通常下一轮就自己纠正了。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. The word 'complete' is the hinge. Most candidates stop at 'the model returns a tool_call, I run it, I hand back the result' and drop both ends: how the tool definitions get into the request, and what makes the loop continue after the result goes back. They want a closed loop, not a one-way call.
  2. Walk the lifecycle in five steps: send tools (name, description, JSON Schema parameters) with every request, since they are not remembered; the model replies with tool_calls and a finish reason of tool_calls; you parse arguments — a JSON string, not an object — and execute; you append the assistant message verbatim plus one tool-role message per tool call with matching tool_call_id; you send the now-longer messages again until the finish reason is no longer tool_calls.
  3. Land on the sentence that draws the security boundary: the model executes nothing. It emits a structured request, and execution, validation, authorization and auditing all live in your code. Since that request ultimately derives from user input, permissions and quotas can never be delegated to the model's good behavior.
  4. Volunteer the three most common 400s — dropping the assistant message that carried the tool_calls, answering only one of several parallel calls, and treating arguments as an object. Naming them shows you have shipped this.
  5. Expect the follow-up: do tools cost tokens forever? Yes — the tool list is re-sent every turn, so ten tools is one to two thousand tokens multiplied by the number of steps. Trim the tool set per scenario instead of registering everything.
  6. Second follow-up: what if the model calls a tool that does not exist? Do not throw. Return 'no such tool, pick one from the list' as an ordinary tool message and the model usually corrects itself on the next turn.

  答题要点

  • 请求里带上 tools 定义（name、description、JSON Schema 参数），每一轮都要重发
  • 模型返回 tool_calls，停止原因为 tool_calls；arguments 是 JSON 字符串，需要再解析一次
  • 先把模型那条 assistant 消息原样追加回 messages，再为每个 tool_call 追加一条 role 为 tool 的消息，tool_call_id 一一对应
  • 带着变长的 messages 继续下一轮，直到停止原因不再是 tool_calls，这才构成闭环
  • 模型只发出请求，执行、校验、鉴权、审计全在你的代码里

  Key points

  • Send the tool definitions (name, description, JSON Schema parameters) on every request — they are not remembered
  • The model returns tool_calls with a finish reason of tool_calls; arguments is a JSON string that needs a second parse
  • Append the assistant message verbatim, then one tool-role message per call with a matching tool_call_id
  • Send the longer message list again until the finish reason changes — that loop is what makes it an agent
  • The model only requests; execution, validation, authorization and auditing stay in your code
• 什么是 ReAct 模式？它和你手写的工具调用循环是什么关系？What is the ReAct pattern, and how does it relate to a hand-rolled tool-calling loop?

  国内高频海外高频进阶#react#agent-loop#tool-calling

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 这题最容易答成名词解释。区分度在于你能不能指出 ReAct 和那个 while 循环是同一个东西，而不是两套并列的技术——把它们说成两样，面试官会认为你只读过博客没写过代码。
  2. 先给历史脉络：ReAct 出现时模型接口还没有工具字段，做法是在提示词里跟模型约定一套纯文本格式，让它交替吐出 Thought、Action、Action Input，你用正则把动作抠出来执行，再把 Observation 拼回提示词里继续。
  3. 再做映射，这是拿分的一步：今天的 function calling 把这套口头约定固化成了协议——Thought 对应 message.content，Action 对应结构化的 tool_calls，Observation 对应你追加回去的那条 role 为 tool 的消息。所以 ReAct 是那个循环的名字，不是另一种实现。
  4. 把取舍说出来：文本版脆在解析，模型少写一个换行、把参数写成 JSON、把 Action 和 Thought 换个顺序，正则就崩；结构化版把这个包袱交给了服务端，是今天的默认选择。但文本版没死——本地小模型、老接口不支持 tools 字段时，回退到「提示词约定 + 正则」仍是唯一可行的兜底，代价是解析失败率自己扛。
  5. 可以预期的追问：要不要让模型显式写出 Thought？它多花 token，但复杂任务的准确率通常更好，日志也终于可读。这是一个可调旋钮，不是必选项，按任务复杂度决定。
  6. 第二个追问：ReAct 和先规划后执行（Plan-and-Execute）有什么区别？ReAct 每一步都重新决策，边走边看，适合环境会变、信息要边查边补的任务；先规划后执行一次性出完整计划，步数和成本更可控，但对中途出现的意外不敏感。真实系统常常混用：先出一个粗计划，每一步内部再走 ReAct。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. The trap is answering with a definition. What separates candidates is whether you can say that ReAct and the while loop you wrote are the same thing rather than two parallel technologies.
  2. Give the history first: when ReAct appeared, model APIs had no tool field. The trick was a prompt-level convention — the model emitted Thought, Action and Action Input as plain text, you regex-extracted the action, ran it, and pasted the Observation back into the prompt.
  3. Then map it, which is where the points are: function calling froze that convention into the protocol. Thought became message.content, Action became structured tool_calls, Observation became the tool-role message you append. ReAct is the name of your loop, not an alternative to it.
  4. State the trade-off: the text version is brittle at the parsing layer — a missing newline, JSON where plain text was expected, or a reordered Thought and Action all break the regex. Structured tool calls hand that problem to the server, which is why they are the default today. The text version is still alive though: local small models and older endpoints without a tools field leave you no other option, and you own the parse failure rate.
  5. Expect: should the model write its Thought out loud? It costs tokens, but accuracy on multi-step tasks usually improves and your logs finally become readable. Treat it as a dial, not a requirement.
  6. Second follow-up: ReAct versus plan-and-execute? ReAct re-decides at every step, which suits environments that change or information you have to gather as you go; plan-and-execute commits to a full plan up front, giving predictable step counts and cost but reacting poorly to surprises. Production systems often nest them: a coarse plan on the outside, a ReAct loop inside each step.

  答题要点

  • ReAct 是 Reasoning 加 Acting，让模型交替进行推理与行动，观察结果后再决定下一步
  • 原始形态靠提示词约定纯文本格式加正则解析；function calling 把这套约定固化进了 API 协议
  • 三步一一对应代码：Thought 是 message.content，Action 是 tool_calls，Observation 是回填的 role 为 tool 的消息
  • 结构化调用的好处是不用自己解析，代价是依赖模型支持 tools 字段；不支持时只能回退到文本版并自担解析失败率
  • 与先规划后执行相比，ReAct 每步重新决策、更适应变化，但步数与成本不如前者可控

  Key points

  • ReAct is Reasoning plus Acting: the model alternates thinking and acting, observing each result before deciding the next step
  • The original form was a prompt convention parsed by regex; function calling froze that convention into the API protocol
  • The three words map to code: Thought is message.content, Action is tool_calls, Observation is the tool-role message you append
  • Structured calls remove the parsing burden but require model support; without it you fall back to text ReAct and own the failure rate
  • Versus plan-and-execute, ReAct adapts better to change but has less predictable step count and cost
• 工具执行报错时，应该怎么把错误信息传给模型？有没有不该传的？When a tool fails, how should the error reach the model — and what must never reach it?

  国内高频海外高频进阶#tool-calling#error-handling

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 题眼在后半句。只答「catch 住、打日志、返回错误」是普通后端思维，答不出「在 Agent 里错误是给模型的反馈」就拿不到区分度分。
  2. 先分类，判据是一句话：这个错误模型改得动吗？参数格式不对、缺了必填项、值不在枚举里、单位没去掉——模型改得动，回传，并且要把「正确的样子」写进错误文案，否则它只会换个花样再错一次。反过来，数据库连不上、下游服务 500、凭证过期，模型改一万遍参数也没用，这类该由代码决定重试还是终止，回传只是让它空转烧钱。
  3. 结论落到形式上：值得回传的错误要变成一条正常的 role 为 tool 的消息，tool_call_id 照样对上，而不是抛异常终止循环。抛了用户看到 500；回传了模型往往下一轮就自己改对，这是 Agent 稳定性最便宜的一份来源。
  4. 接着答「不该传的」：绝不回传原始异常堆栈。堆栈里有文件路径、内部服务名，有时还有连接串，它会原封不动进入下一次请求，也可能被模型复述给用户；而且动辄上千 token，每一轮都跟着历史重发。回给模型的必须是你自己写的一句话，原始堆栈只进日志。
  5. 可以预期的追问：模型一直改不对怎么办？错误也要计入步数，撞上步数上限就终止并给用户一句交代；再进一步，同一个工具连续失败若干次可以直接把它从这一轮的可用工具里摘掉，逼模型换条路。
  6. 第二个追问：这和模型层的 fallback 是一回事吗？是同一套判断的两侧——那边问「换一家 provider 有没有可能变好」，这边问「让模型改一改有没有可能变好」，都是先分类再决定重试，一刀切重试在两边都是错的。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. The second half is the discriminator. 'Catch it, log it, return an error' is ordinary backend thinking; the insight they want is that inside an agent loop an error is feedback to the model, not a failure notification.
  2. Classify first, with one test: can the model fix this? Malformed arguments, a missing required field, a value outside the enum, a unit that should not be there — the model can fix those, so return them, and spell out what correct looks like or it will simply fail differently next time. A database that is down, a 5xx from a downstream service, an expired credential — no amount of re-prompting helps, so code decides whether to retry or abort.
  3. Then the mechanics: a returnable error becomes an ordinary tool-role message with the matching tool_call_id, not an exception that unwinds the loop. Throwing gives the user a 500; returning usually gets the model to correct itself on the very next turn, which is the cheapest reliability you will ever buy.
  4. Now the 'never' half: never hand back a raw stack trace. It carries file paths, internal service names and sometimes connection strings, it enters the next request verbatim, the model may recite it to the user, and it costs a thousand tokens re-sent every turn. Send a sentence you wrote; keep the stack in your logs.
  5. Expect: what if the model never gets it right? Failed calls still count against the step budget, and hitting the cap should end the run with an honest message. Going further, a tool that fails N times in a row can be dropped from the available set for that run, forcing a different route.
  6. Second follow-up: is this the same as provider fallback? Two sides of one judgment. There you ask whether another provider could plausibly succeed; here you ask whether the model could plausibly fix it. Blanket retry is wrong in both places.

  答题要点

  • 先分类：模型改得动的错误（参数格式、缺字段、枚举越界）才值得回传，外部故障应由代码决定重试或终止
  • 回传的形式是一条正常的 role 为 tool 的消息，tool_call_id 照常对应，而不是抛异常中断循环
  • 错误文案里要写清「正确的样子」，模型才知道该怎么改，否则它只会换个花样再错一次
  • 绝不回传原始异常堆栈：内部路径与服务名会进入下一次请求、可能被复述给用户，还白白吃掉上千 token
  • 报错同样计入步数上限；同一工具连续失败可以临时摘掉，避免模型在原地打转

  Key points

  • Classify first: only model-fixable errors (bad arguments, missing fields, enum violations) are worth returning; infrastructure failures are the code's decision
  • Return it as an ordinary tool-role message with the matching tool_call_id, not as an exception that kills the loop
  • Write what correct looks like into the message, otherwise the model just fails a different way
  • Never return raw stack traces: internal paths leak into the next request and to users, and they burn a thousand tokens every turn
  • Failed calls count against the step budget, and a repeatedly failing tool can be removed from the available set
• 怎么防止 Agent 循环停不下来？只加一个最大步数够吗？How do you keep an agent loop from running forever — is a max-step counter enough?

  国内高频海外高频深入#agent-loop#reliability#cost

  分析过程 · 先想清楚再作答

  1. 后半句是明摆着的陷阱。只答「加一个计数器」是及格线，面试官真正想听的是你知道计数器拦不住什么。
  2. 先解释它为什么会停不下来：停止原因一直是 tool_calls，通常是因为工具返回的东西没帮模型前进——结果为空、字段答非所问、错误文案没说清该怎么改，于是它换个参数一试再试。所以第一层其实不是护栏，是把工具的返回值和错误文案写得有信息量。
  3. 再给硬护栏，三条互补：步数上限最直接；token 与成本预算拦的是「步数不多但每步都很贵」；单轮的墙上时钟超时拦的是「一步就卡了两分钟」。只有步数上限的系统，照样会被一次超长上下文的调用打爆预算。
  4. 语义层面再加一条：检测重复调用。同一个工具、同一份参数连续出现两次以上，几乎可以断定它在原地打转，直接截断并把「你已经用完全相同的参数调过这个工具了，换个思路或者告诉用户你做不到」回传给模型，往往比等步数耗尽更快收敛。
  5. 触顶之后必须有交代：不能静默返回空字符串，要给用户一句能理解的话；同时把触顶记成一个指标，触顶率上升通常意味着某个工具的描述或返回值该改了，而不是把上限调大。
  6. 可以预期的追问：上限设多少？没有普适值。聊天类任务 5 到 10 步通常够，需要多轮检索的任务可以更高。正确做法是看线上的步数分布，取 p99 再留一点余量，而不是拍脑袋——上限设得越死，你的系统就越靠近固定流程那一端，越不像一个 Agent。

  How to reason about it · think before answering

  1. The second half is an open trap. 'Add a counter' is the passing grade; what they want is whether you know what a counter cannot catch.
  2. Explain why it runs away first: the finish reason stays tool_calls because the tool results are not moving the model forward — empty results, fields that do not answer the question, error text that never says what correct looks like. So the first line of defense is not a guard rail at all; it is writing tool results and error messages that carry information.
  3. Then three complementary hard limits: a step cap is the obvious one; a token and cost budget catches 'few steps, all of them expensive'; a per-step wall-clock timeout catches 'one call hung for two minutes'. A system with only a step cap can still blow its budget on a single enormous context.
  4. Add a semantic guard: detect repeats. The same tool with identical arguments twice in a row is almost always spinning. Cut it short and tell the model so — 'you already called this tool with exactly these arguments' — which usually converges faster than waiting for the counter to run out.
  5. Hitting the cap needs an honest ending: never return an empty string, give the user a sentence they can act on, and record cap hits as a metric. A rising cap-hit rate usually means a tool's description or return value needs fixing, not that the cap should be raised.
  6. Expect: what number do you pick? There is no universal one. Chat-style tasks usually fit in five to ten steps; retrieval-heavy tasks need more. Read the production distribution, take p99 plus headroom, and remember that the tighter the cap, the closer your system sits to a fixed workflow rather than an agent.

  答题要点

  • 根因通常是工具返回值或错误文案没信息量，模型无法前进只能反复重试，先把这层写好
  • 三条硬护栏互补：最大步数、token 与成本预算、单步墙上时钟超时，只有步数上限并不够
  • 语义护栏：同一工具加同一份参数连续重复调用即判定原地打转，截断并把这个事实回传给模型
  • 触顶要给用户一句交代，不能静默返回空；同时把触顶率当指标，上升说明工具该改而不是把上限调大
  • 上限值按线上步数分布取 p99 加余量；上限越死越接近固定流程，越不像 Agent

  Key points

  • The root cause is usually uninformative tool results or error text, so fix that layer before adding guards
  • Three complementary hard limits: max steps, a token and cost budget, and a per-step wall-clock timeout
  • Add a semantic guard: identical tool plus identical arguments twice in a row means it is spinning — cut it and tell the model
  • Give the user an honest message when the cap is hit, and track the cap-hit rate as a signal that a tool needs fixing
  • Size the cap from the production step distribution, not intuition; a tighter cap makes the system a workflow rather than an agent

评论

登录后即可参与讨论

还没有评论，来说第一句。