Generate concise structured summaries from long text using bullets, paragraphs, or executive format with adjustable length.
Executive TL;DR text summarizer producing structured bullet points via Workers AI Llama 3.1
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Source text payload to summarize | |
| format | No | Summary output format style | |
| maxLength | No | Target word count limit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the use of Workers AI Llama 3.1, but fails to mention that the output format can vary (bullets, paragraph, executive) or any limitations, making the behavior only partially transparent.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, though some details are omitted for the sake of conciseness.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must provide more context. It fails to mention the supported output formats, which are critical for correct tool invocation, and does not explain return value structure or limitations.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify how 'format' or 'maxLength' interact with the summarization process.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a text summarizer, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other tasks. However, it states 'producing structured bullet points' while the schema allows 'paragraph' and 'executive' formats, which is somewhat misleading about the full capability.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The one-sentence description does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools like rag_shrink or code_denoise.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.