Implement ToolCallStep & Fix transition after PromptStep

[HamadaSalhab]

Important

Implements ToolCallStep and fixes transition logic after PromptStep in workflow execution.

• ToolCallStep Implementation:
  • Implements tool_call_step() in tool_call_step.py to handle tool calls, generating call ID and validating tool names.
  • Updates STEP_TO_ACTIVITY in task_execution/__init__.py to map ToolCallStep to tool_call_step().
• PromptStep Transition Fix:
  • Updates transition logic in task_execution/__init__.py to handle tool calls after a PromptStep.
  • Removes unused code related to tool calls in PromptStep handling.
• State Machine Update:
  • Updates valid_transitions in tasks.py to allow 'wait' to 'step' transition.

^{This description was created by for 0552f80. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 5ab9e3a in 27 seconds

More details

• Looked at 176 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. agents-api/agents_api/activities/task_steps/tool_call_step.py:48

• Draft comment:
  Replace print statements with proper logging for better production code practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment addresses a change made in the diff, specifically the addition of print statements. Using logging instead of print statements is a widely accepted practice for better control over output, especially in production environments. This comment is actionable and clear, suggesting a code quality improvement.
  The comment might be considered obvious to experienced developers, but it still provides a valid suggestion for improving code quality. It doesn't address a critical issue, but it is relevant to the changes made.
  Even if the suggestion is somewhat obvious, it is still a valid and actionable improvement to the code quality, which aligns with the rules for keeping comments.
  Keep the comment as it provides a valid suggestion for improving code quality by replacing print statements with logging.

2. agents-api/agents_api/activities/task_steps/tool_call_step.py:27

• Draft comment:
  Consider replacing assertions with proper error handling to provide informative error messages and avoid abrupt termination in production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is about a change made in the diff, specifically the use of assertions. Assertions can be useful during development but may not be suitable for production code where proper error handling is preferred. The comment is actionable and suggests a code quality improvement.
  The comment does not specify what kind of error handling should be used, which might make it less actionable. However, the suggestion to replace assertions is a common practice for production code.
  While the comment could be more specific, it still points out a valid concern about using assertions in production code, which is a recognized best practice.
  The comment is valid and suggests a code quality improvement by replacing assertions with error handling. It should be kept.

3. agents-api/agents_api/activities/task_steps/tool_call_step.py:34

• Draft comment:
  Consider replacing assertions with proper error handling to provide informative error messages and avoid abrupt termination in production.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

4. agents-api/agents_api/activities/task_steps/tool_call_step.py:14

• Draft comment:
  The generate_call_id function is well-implemented for generating secure and unique identifiers using secrets and base64.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The generate_call_id function uses secrets and base64 to generate a unique ID. This is a good practice for generating secure and unique identifiers.

5. agents-api/agents_api/common/protocol/tasks.py:75

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the new transition from wait to step in valid_transitions aligns with the intended workflow logic.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The valid_transitions dictionary in tasks.py was updated to include a new transition from wait to step. This change should be verified to ensure it aligns with the intended workflow logic.

6. agents-api/agents_api/workflows/task_execution/__init__.py:456

• Draft comment:
  Verify that handling ToolCallStep by entering a wait-for-input step aligns with the intended workflow logic.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The tool_call_step function in task_execution/__init__.py now handles ToolCallStep by entering a wait-for-input step. This change should be verified to ensure it aligns with the intended workflow logic.

Workflow ID: wflow_3KjONhYlH04aXtea

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 0552f80 in 24 seconds

More details

• Looked at 165 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. agents-api/agents_api/activities/task_steps/tool_call_step.py:49

• Draft comment:
  Consider setting the next attribute in StepOutcome if a transition to the next step is expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is speculative as it suggests an action based on an assumption that a transition might be expected. The current code does not indicate any need for a next attribute, and the comment does not point out a definite issue. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to keep this comment.
  I might be missing some context about how StepOutcome is used elsewhere in the codebase, which could make the comment relevant. However, based on the provided code, there is no evidence that the next attribute is needed.
  Given the rules, I should focus on the evidence within the provided code. Since there's no indication that the next attribute is required, the comment should be removed.
  Remove the comment as it is speculative and not based on any evidence from the provided code that a next attribute is needed.

2. agents-api/agents_api/activities/task_steps/prompt_step.py:22

• Draft comment:
  Remove unnecessary blank line to improve code readability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 10%
  The prompt_step.py file has an unnecessary blank line at line 22. Removing it can improve code readability.

Workflow ID: wflow_QV6whnstH40tGT0i

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Using assert for runtime checks is not recommended as it can be disabled in production. Consider raising an exception instead for better error handling.

[ellipsis-dev]

Ensure context.current_step.tool contains a . to avoid ValueError during unpacking. Consider adding error handling for this case.