fixed grammar mistake

[itsuki-1]

Summary

Fixes a syntax error in the JSDoc comments within the core package. specifically correcting an invalid tag in tools.ts.

Details

Changed the JSDoc tag @params to the correct standard @param on line 384 of /packages/core/src/tools/tools.ts. This ensures that IDEs and documentation generators parse the function parameters correctly.

Related Issues

N/A

How to Validate

1. Open /packages/core/src/tools/tools.ts.
2. Navigate to line 384.
3. Verify that the tag reads @param instead of @params.
4. (Optional) Run npm run build or the project's lint command to ensure no regressions, though this is a comment-only change.

Pre-Merge Checklist

• Updated relevant documentation and README (if needed) - [ ] Added/updated tests (if needed)
• Noted breaking changes (if any)
• Validated on required platforms/methods:
  • MacOS
  • npm run
  • npx
  • Docker
  • Podman
  • Seatbelt
  • Windows
    • npm run
    • npx
    • Docker
  • Linux
    • npm run
    • npx
    • Docker

[google-cla]

Thanks for your pull request! It looks like this may be your first contribution to a Google open source project. Before we can look at your pull request, you'll need to sign a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

View this failed invocation of the CLA check for more information.

For the most up to date status, view the checks section at the bottom of the pull request.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @itsuki-1, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a minor but important documentation fix within the core package. It specifically corrects a JSDoc tag to align with standard conventions, improving the accuracy and utility of generated documentation and IDE hints.

Highlights

• JSDoc Correction: Corrected an invalid JSDoc tag from "@params" to "@param" for the abortSignal parameter in packages/core/src/tools/tools.ts. This ensures proper parsing by IDEs and documentation generators.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request fixes a small typo in a JSDoc comment within tools.ts, correcting @params to @param. This change is correct and improves documentation clarity. Given the nature of the change and the requested review severity of high and critical, I have no further comments.

[iqbalbhatti49]

Well