use "path" instead of "path prefixes"?

Path prefix is the "official" standardese term - as they're prepended, in order, to the thing you're looking for. POSIX:

PATH
This variable shall represent the sequence of path prefixes that certain functions and utilities apply in searching for an executable file known only by a filename. The prefixes shall be separated by a <colon> ( ':' ). When a non-zero-length prefix is applied to this filename, a <slash> shall be inserted between the prefix and the filename if the prefix did not end in <slash>. A zero-length prefix is a legacy feature that indicates the current working directory. It appears as two adjacent <colon> characters ( "::" ), as an initial <colon> preceding the rest of the list, or as a trailing <colon> following the rest of the list. A strictly conforming application shall use an actual pathname (such as .) to represent the current working directory in PATH. The list shall be searched from beginning to end, applying the filename to each prefix, until an executable file with the specified name and appropriate execution permissions is found. If the pathname being sought contains a <slash>, the search through the path prefixes shall not be performed. If the pathname begins with a <slash>, the specified path is resolved (see Pathname Resolution). If PATH is unset or is set to null, the path search is implementation-defined.

We've never used the term before in SCons docs.. we've used the term as a prefix to a path, but not as adding it to a list of paths to search.

IMHO they're a collection of paths to be searched..

Here's what we've used in SCons docs..

When called as a construction environment method, searches the paths in the path keyword argument, or if None (the default) the paths listed in the construction environment (env['ENV']['PATH']). The external environment's path list (os.environ['PATH']) is used as a fallback if the key env['ENV']['PATH'] does not exist.

I find "path prefixes" to be more confusing than just paths or path.

Obviously can change back, but I fail to see how it can be confusing. The passage you cite is different - it's "active" - when you call a function it's fine to say it "searches". The description of a variable is passive: it doesn't "search", just describes how it will be used at some later time.

One would not expect the author of text to find it confusing, but rather feed back from the consumers of such would be able to point it out.. ?