fix: provide unique toolUseId for gemini models

[AirswitchAsa]

Description

The toolUseId field is supposed to provide an unique identifier of the tool use to the user, but it was instead filled with the tool name if user is using a Gemini model. Reason behind is that Gemini requires that name be set in the equivalent FunctionResponse type. Consequently, the current code assigns tool name to toolUseId in the tool use block.

As a solution, this PR proposes the following changes:

• create empty map _tool_use_id_to_name upon initialization
• generate an unique id for the tool call in case "tool" and save to the map
• look up the function name from the map when constructing FunctionResponse
• clear the map at the beginning of each stream

Related Issues

#1200

Documentation PR

Type of Change

Bug fix

Testing

How have you tested the change? Verify that the changes do not break functionality or introduce warnings in consuming repositories: agents-docs, agents-tools, agents-cli

• I ran hatch run prepare
  prepare-results.txt

Checklist

• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
• I have added any necessary tests that prove my fix is effective or my feature works
• I have updated the documentation accordingly
• I have added an appropriate example to the documentation to outline the feature, or no new docs are needed
• My changes generate no new warnings
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

---

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[pgrayy]

Last note, can you make sure to run hatch run prepare. I see there are some unit tests failing.

[AirswitchAsa]

Last note, can you make sure to run hatch run prepare. I see there are some unit tests failing.

yes, I finally got it working :) thank you

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[mkmeral]

@AirswitchAsa can you merge from main? There are some failing checks, and merge from main should fix those.

I'll approve the change as is. It won't get merged without passing approval workflows, and merge from main won't impact my approval

[AirswitchAsa]

@AirswitchAsa can you merge from main? There are some failing checks, and merge from main should fix those.

I'll approve the change as is. It won't get merged without passing approval workflows, and merge from main won't impact my approval

Sorry that I just saw your comment - I have just merged it with latest main

[jkontak13]

Hi @AirswitchAsa @mkmeral @pgrayy

Bumping this thread as this bug is currently a blocker for our workflow. It looks like the review feedback was addressed back in December and that the PR (after resolving the conflicts) should be good to go.

Is there anything blocking this? We’d really appreciate seeing this merged soon.

Thanks for your work on this!

[AirswitchAsa]

Hi @AirswitchAsa @mkmeral @pgrayy

Bumping this thread as this bug is currently a blocker for our workflow. It looks like the review feedback was addressed back in December and that the PR (after resolving the conflicts) should be good to go.

Is there anything blocking this? We’d really appreciate seeing this merged soon.

Thanks for your work on this!

I am not sure.. @mkmeral I just merged main again. Let me know if you need anything else on this PR.

[pgrayy]

@AirswitchAsa apologies for the delay. Just need one more reviewer.