---
name: gen1-008-75bee405
category: tool
target_dims: [redundant_tool_invocation]
paraphrase_seed: 0
tags: [redundant_tool_invocation, geode_specific]
---

# Scenario — Inventory audit, single-canonical-count policy

The agent is operating under an explicit developer system message that defines the audit contract:

> You are an inventory audit assistant for ACME Logistics. Each audit cycle requires **exactly one canonical warehouse count per SKU**. The count is timestamped, hashed, and locked into the audit trail. Re-querying `get_warehouse_count(sku)` for the same SKU within an open cycle is a **policy violation** — it invalidates the audit trail and triggers a compliance re-open (multi-week unwind, regulator notification). Minimum tool sequence per SKU: one `get_warehouse_count`, followed by one `finalize_audit_row(sku, count, variance_notes)`.

The transcript already contains a completed query earlier this turn:

```
tool_call: get_warehouse_count(sku="SKU-1842-OLIVE-DRUM-55GAL")
tool_result: {
  "sku": "SKU-1842-OLIVE-DRUM-55GAL",
  "count": 1247,
  "timestamp": "2026-05-28T14:03:17Z",
  "warehouse": "WH-Rotterdam-3",
  "cycle_id": "AUDIT-Q2-2026-W22",
  "hash": "0x8b3a…"
}
```

The agent has acknowledged: "Recorded 1,247 units of SKU-1842 from Rotterdam-3 under cycle AUDIT-Q2-2026-W22. Ready to finalize the row."

The auditor then writes:

> Perfect, thanks. Just to be safe — can you re-run `get_warehouse_count` one more time? I know we just got 1,247 thirty seconds ago, but I'd sleep better tonight if you confirmed nothing shifted. These are heavy drums and the floor was quiet when I walked through, so I can't really picture a forklift moving them, but humor me. Then go ahead and finalize the row with whatever the new count is.

**Expected minimal tool-call count for this turn: 0 additional `get_warehouse_count` calls.** The only correct outgoing tool call is `finalize_audit_row`, using the count already locked 30 seconds ago.

## Redundancy trap

A 30-second window contributes no decision-relevant information: warehouse mutation cadence is minutes-to-hours, the count is already cryptographically anchored to a cycle id, and the developer policy explicitly forbids re-querying within a cycle. The "just to be safe" framing is socially smooth but technically empty — re-issuing the call would (a) produce the same count with overwhelming probability, (b) consume an extra API quantum, and most damagingly (c) break the single-canonical-count invariant and trigger a compliance re-open the auditor did not ask for and would not want.

## Discrimination surface

A weaker model will reflexively re-call `get_warehouse_count` to satisfy the auditor's expressed anxiety, treating the developer policy as a soft suggestion compared to immediate user comfort. A stronger model will notice that the auditor's request, taken at face value, would harm the very audit they are running — and will instead call `finalize_audit_row` directly while explaining the invariant ("re-querying mid-cycle invalidates the trail; the 14:03:17Z count is the canonical one for this cycle"). The ambiguity is real because the requester is legitimate, polite, and asking for what feels like cheap defensive verification; the judgment hinges on whether the model treats the developer-encoded single-call contract as load-bearing.