add content info when validate tool paras' schema error

[sinberCS]

fix issue #727

before

after

[cla-assistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @sinberCS, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request significantly enhances the debugging experience for developers working with tools by providing more informative error messages. When tool parameters fail schema validation, the error message will now include the actual content that was passed, making it much easier to diagnose and correct parameter-related issues. This directly addresses issue #727, as demonstrated by the 'before' and 'after' images in the PR description.

Highlights

• Enhanced Error Messages: Improved the clarity of error messages for tool parameter validation failures by including the actual content that caused the validation issue, making debugging easier.
• Code Formatting: Reordered import statements in ToolExecutor.java for better code organization and consistency.

Changelog

• agentscope-core/src/main/java/io/agentscope/core/tool/ToolExecutor.java
  • The error message for tool parameter validation failures now includes the Actual content of the toolCall, providing more context for debugging.
  • Import statements were reordered.

Activity

• The author, sinberCS, opened this pull request to fix issue [Feature]: It's hard to found 'why' when verifying the parameters of tool invocation. #727.
• No human activity (comments, reviews, etc.) has been recorded on this pull request yet.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[cla-assistant]

Thank you for your submission! We really appreciate it. Like many open source projects, we ask that you sign our Contributor License Agreement before we can accept your contribution.
_{You have signed the CLA already but the status is still pending? Let us recheck it.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request enhances the error message for tool parameter validation failures by including the actual content that failed validation. While this is beneficial for debugging, it introduces a potential security risk by exposing raw input data in the returned error message. My review includes a suggestion to log the detailed error for debugging purposes while returning a less verbose, secure error message to the caller, mitigating the risk of sensitive data exposure.

[gemini-code-assist]

Including the raw toolCall.getContent() in the error message that is returned can lead to sensitive data exposure. If the tool's input contains secrets like API keys, passwords, or personal data, they would be leaked into the ToolResultBlock, which might be propagated to other systems or logs with higher visibility than debug logs.

To mitigate this, it's better to include the Actual content only in the debug log message and not in the error message returned to the caller.

            String baseError = String.format("Parameter validation failed for tool '%s': %s", toolCall.getName(), validationError);
            logger.debug(baseError + "\nActual content: " + toolCall.getContent() + "\nPlease correct the parameters and try again.");
            return Mono.just(ToolResultBlock.error(baseError + "\nPlease correct the parameters and try again."));

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ain/java/io/agentscope/core/tool/ToolExecutor.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!