JSDoc `@overload`s on constructors don't capture class type parameters, can dictate their return type

Found from #55916.

Today if you try to write a generic constructor, captured type parameters fail to create a generic signature. Instead, the type parameter is effectively leaked and never instantiated.

/**
 * @template T
 */
class C {
    /**
     * @overload
     * @param {T} value
     */

    /**
     * @overload
     * @param {T} first
     * @param {T} second
     */

    /**
     * @param {T} first
     * @param {T} [second]
     */
    constructor(first, second) {
    }
}

const x = new C(123);
//              ~~~
// Argument of type 'number' is not assignable to parameter of type 'T'.
//  'T' could be instantiated with an arbitrary type which could be unrelated to 'number'.

const y = new C("hello", "world");
//              ~~~~~~~
// Argument of type 'string' is not assignable to parameter of type 'T'.
//  'T' could be instantiated with an arbitrary type which could be unrelated to 'string'.

The current-workaround is to write something like the following:

/**
 * @template T
 */
class C {
    /**
     * @template T
     * @overload
     * @param {T} value
     * @return {C<T>}
     */

    /**
     * @template T
     * @overload
     * @param {T} first
     * @param {T} second
     * @return {C<T>}
     */

    /**
     * @param {T} first
     * @param {T} [second]
     */
    constructor(first, second) {
    }
}

const x = new C(123);
//    ^?

const y = new C("hello", "world");
//    ^?

const y = new C(123, "hello");
//    ^?

Notice that here, each @overload must declare its own type parameters and return type.

We should decide if this is actually how we want @overload to work in JSDoc on constructor declarations.