A customer support team uses a foundation model via the Gemini API to answer billing questions. Responses are often vague and sometimes omit required steps. The team wants to improve output quality without fine-tuning the model. Which approach should they use?
Few-shot examples show the model the desired structure and level of detail, while an explicit format forces the required steps to appear. This steers the base model without any training, which matches the constraint of not fine-tuning. It directly addresses both vagueness and missing steps by making the expected answer shape part of the prompt.
Why this answer
Prompt engineering with few-shot examples and an enforced output format is the fastest way to raise quality without changing the model weights. Examples demonstrate the expected depth, and a structured template guarantees that required steps appear. Sampling parameters alter randomness, and token limits alter length, but neither supplies missing procedural knowledge or enforces completeness.
Exam trap
The trap here is assuming that sampling parameters such as temperature or top-p can add missing factual steps, when they only change randomness and cannot supply required content.