The Manual Labor Conundrum

Oct 13, 2025 by miodeya.com 50 views

Problem Statement

When working with tools in Python, developers often encounter a challenge when loading functions as tools. Currently, the create_tool_from_function method requires Annotated parameters to be used for smooth parsing. However, this approach deviates from the standard documentation practice in Python, which relies on ReST-style docstrings. As a result, tool creators are forced to manually convert standard Python functions to tools, a process that can be time-consuming and labor-intensive.

The Manual Labor Conundrum

The current approach of using Annotated parameters for functions to be parsed as tools is not only non-standard but also requires manual labor from tool creators. This involves copying the ReST docstring from the function and pasting it into the Annotated description. This process can be tedious and prone to errors, especially when dealing with complex functions or large codebases.

The Solution: Supporting ReST-style Docstrings

To address this issue, we propose modifying the create_tool_from_function method to support ReST-style docstrings by default. This would enable developers to use the standard documentation practice in Python, making it easier to create and load tools from functions. The proposed solution is based on the pull request https://github.com/deepset-ai/haystack/pull/9004.

Benefits of the Proposed Solution

By supporting ReST-style docstrings, the proposed solution offers several benefits:

Simplified tool creation: Developers can create tools from functions without the need for manual labor, reducing the time and effort required to convert standard Python functions to tools.
Standardized documentation practice: The proposed solution aligns with the standard documentation practice in Python, making it easier for developers to follow best practices and maintain consistency in their code.
Improved code readability: ReST-style docstrings provide a clear and concise way to document functions, making it easier for developers to understand the code and its functionality.

Alternatives Considered

While the proposed solution is the most straightforward approach, we considered alternative solutions to address the issue:

Using a separate documentation tool: One possible alternative is to use a separate documentation tool that can parse ReST-style docstrings and generate Annotated parameters for the create_tool_from_function method. However, this approach would add complexity to the tooling process and may not be as efficient as the proposed solution.
Modifying the create_tool_from_function method: Another alternative is to modify the create_tool_from_function method to accept both Annotated parameters and ReST-style docstrings. However, this approach would require significant changes to the method and may introduce additional complexity.

Additional Context

The proposed solution was initially developed as a small upgrade for a personal project. However, after further consideration, it became clear that this feature can be standardized as a common feature in the tooling process. As a result, we are submitting a pull request to incorporate this feature into the main codebase.

Conclusion

Q: What is the current issue with loading tools from functions?

A: Currently, the create_tool_from_function method requires Annotated parameters to be used for smooth parsing. However, this approach deviates from the standard documentation practice in Python, which relies on ReST-style docstrings. As a result, tool creators are forced to manually convert standard Python functions to tools, a process that can be time-consuming and labor-intensive.

Q: Why is it necessary to support ReST-style docstrings?

A: Supporting ReST-style docstrings is necessary to align with the standard documentation practice in Python. This will make it easier for developers to follow best practices and maintain consistency in their code. Additionally, ReST-style docstrings provide a clear and concise way to document functions, making it easier for developers to understand the code and its functionality.

Q: How will supporting ReST-style docstrings simplify the tool creation process?

A: By supporting ReST-style docstrings, developers can create tools from functions without the need for manual labor, reducing the time and effort required to convert standard Python functions to tools. This will make the tool creation process more efficient and easier to maintain.

Q: What are the benefits of using ReST-style docstrings?

A: The benefits of using ReST-style docstrings include:

Simplified tool creation: Developers can create tools from functions without the need for manual labor.
Standardized documentation practice: The proposed solution aligns with the standard documentation practice in Python.
Improved code readability: ReST-style docstrings provide a clear and concise way to document functions.

Q: What alternatives were considered to address the issue?

A: We considered the following alternatives:

Using a separate documentation tool: One possible alternative is to use a separate documentation tool that can parse ReST-style docstrings and generate Annotated parameters for the create_tool_from_function method.
Modifying the create_tool_from_function method: Another alternative is to modify the create_tool_from_function method to accept both Annotated parameters and ReST-style docstrings.

Q: Why was the proposed solution chosen over the alternatives?

A: The proposed solution was chosen because it is the most straightforward approach to address the issue. It aligns with the standard documentation practice in Python and provides a clear and concise way to document functions.

Q: What is the next step in implementing the proposed solution?

A: The next step is to submit a pull request to incorporate the proposed solution into the main codebase. This will make the feature available to all developers and ensure that it is properly tested and maintained.

Q: How will the proposed solution be tested and maintained?

A: The proposed solution will be tested and maintained through a combination of automated testing and manual review. This will ensure that the feature is properly implemented and functions as expected.

Q: What is the expected timeline for implementing the proposed solution?

A: The expected timeline for implementing the proposed solution is dependent on the complexity of the changes required and the availability of resources. However, we anticipate that the feature will be available within the next few weeks.

Q: How will the proposed solution impact existing codebases?

A: The proposed solution will not impact existing codebases. However, developers will need to update their code to use the new feature. This will involve modifying the create_tool_from_function method to accept ReST-style docstrings.

Q: What is the expected outcome of implementing the proposed solution?

A: The expected outcome of implementing the proposed solution is to simplify the tool creation process, align with standard documentation practices, and improve code readability. This will make the tool creation process more efficient and easier to maintain.