Direct a light toward a target object or coordinate. Use the Track To constraint option to keep the light continuously aimed as the target moves.
让灯光指向对象或坐标；use_constraint 用 Track To 约束持续跟随。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| light | Yes | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| use_constraint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that use_constraint creates a Track To constraint for continuous following, which adds real value, but it doesn't explain what happens when use_constraint is false, potential side effects, or coordinate-space details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the key optional behavior, so every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple aiming operation, the core behavior is covered, but with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter detail, the description leaves gaps around coordinate format, behavior when use_constraint is false, and error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that target can be an object or coordinates and explains use_constraint as a Track To constraint. However, it doesn't specify how the light is identified, coordinate array format, or world vs local space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: point a light at an object or coordinate, and mentions the optional Track To constraint behavior. It is clear enough to distinguish from camera-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: use this when you want a light to point at a target. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over point_camera_at or set_light, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.