Summarize any text as bullet points, a paragraph, or a one-liner — deterministic (temperature 0) flash-model summarization sized for agent pipelines. $0.008/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to summarize (truncated to 8,000 characters) | |
| style | No | Output shape | paragraph |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds value by disclosing determinism (temperature 0), flash-model selection, and pricing context, but lacks deeper detail on output format edge cases or failure behavior.
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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends relevant constraints (deterministic, cost) without padding.
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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, output styles, and operational context (determinism, cost). It implicitly defines the return as the summarized text, though not explicitly.
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?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (text and style) with descriptions and an enum, so the description adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline 3 applies given >80% schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly names the verb 'Summarize' and the resource 'any text', plus lists three output styles. This distinguishes it from siblings like classify_text, extract_keywords, and rewrite_text.
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?
Description implies the tool is for agent pipelines and notes deterministic behavior and cost, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternative text-processing tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.