Paste a long text and this tool identifies its most important sentences and returns them exactly as written, in their original order. It is an extractive summariser: it selects, it does not rewrite.
That is a deliberate limitation. Because every sentence in the output is one the source actually contains, the summary cannot introduce a claim the author never made — the failure mode that makes generated summaries risky to quote from or rely on for study.
The tool counts how often each meaningful word appears across the whole text, ignoring common function words. Each sentence then scores according to how many high-frequency terms it contains, divided by its length so that long rambling sentences do not win on volume alone.
The highest-scoring sentences are returned in their original order, not in score order. Reordering by score would produce a paragraph that jumps around and reads as nonsense even though every sentence is genuine.
An extractive summary pulls out existing sentences. An abstractive summary writes new ones that capture the meaning — what a person does when they summarise properly, and what a language model attempts.
Abstractive output reads better. It also introduces a risk: the new sentence may subtly misstate the source, and you would have to re-read the original to notice. Extractive output reads more stiffly but is verifiable at a glance, which is the right trade-off for study material and for anything you might cite.
It works well for triage: deciding whether a paper is worth reading in full, getting the gist of a long report, or condensing your own notes before revision. The frequent-terms list is a quick way to see what a text is actually about.
It works poorly on text with no clear repeated vocabulary, on dialogue, and on very short passages where there is nothing to cut. It also cannot judge importance the way you can — a crucial sentence stated once in plain words may score low precisely because it avoids the text's jargon.
A summary of someone else's work still needs a citation. Shortening a text does not make its ideas yours, and the sentences this tool returns are the author's exact words — if you use them, they need quotation marks as well as a citation.
For an assignment, the safer route is to read the summary, then write the point in your own words without the original in front of you, and cite the source. That produces genuine paraphrase rather than lightly edited copying, and it is also how you actually learn the material.
No. It selects the most important sentences and returns them word for word, so nothing is invented or altered.
No. It scores sentences by word frequency, entirely in your browser. That makes it verifiable — every sentence in the output appears in your source.
Yes. Summarising does not transfer ownership of the ideas, and because the sentences are verbatim they also need quotation marks if used directly.
Because it is made of sentences lifted from different parts of the text. That is the trade-off for never inventing anything.
No. Everything runs in your browser and nothing is transmitted or stored.