Free Salesforce Agentforce-Specialist Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 8

The AgentForce No-Code Builder and Prompt Template Guide specifies that when using Salesforce’s standard foundation models, users can ground prompts on CRM and Data Cloud data without requiring fine-tuning or model deployment. The documentation notes: “No-code users can leverage standard foundation models with prompt templates grounded in Salesforce data, including CRM and Data Cloud, to summarize records, highlight insights, and prepare agents for customer engagements.”

This approach allows the sales operations team to automatically summarize customer data (purchases, interests, and communications) without needing model customization.

Option A (deploying a custom foundational model) requires data science expertise, not available in a no-code setup. Option B (fine-tuning) is unnecessary because standard models with grounding are optimized for contextual data use.

Thus, Option C aligns with Salesforce’s recommended low-code/no-code configuration for contextual AI assistance.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Builder Guide: “No-Code Prompt Templates Grounded in CRM and Data Cloud”

Salesforce Einstein Studio Overview: “Standard vs. Fine-Tuned Models”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Empowering Sales Teams with Grounded Prompts”

Per the AgentForce Custom Action Development Guide, if a topic is correctly triggered but the wrong action is executed, the issue typically lies in action instructions. The documentation notes: “Action instructions provide the LLM with explicit guidance on when and how to use a given action. Poorly written or ambiguous instructions can cause the reasoning engine to select an incorrect action, even within the right topic.”

Option A (Action Scope) defines data inputs/outputs, not reasoning behavior.

Option C (Classification Description) pertains to topic-level intent, not action execution.

Thus, Option B — refining and testing the action instructions — ensures accurate behavior and action selection.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Action Creation Guide: “Testing and Refining Action Instructions”

AgentForce Builder User Guide: “Ensuring Correct Action Selection”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Troubleshooting Incorrect Action Mapping”

Why is "Verify the retriever's filter criteria and data source connection" the correct answer?

If agent answers are not satisfactory when using PDF files as a knowledge source, the issue is likely caused by:

Retriever misconfiguration

If filters are too broad or too restrictive, AI may fail to find relevant information.

Checking filter logic and retrieval scope helps improve accuracy.

Incorrect data source connection

If the retriever is not properly linked to the PDF storage location, it may fail to retrieve relevant information.

Ensuring a stable connection between Salesforce Data Cloud and the retriever prevents retrieval failures.

Parsing Issues with PDF Files

If PDFs are not properly indexed, AI may struggle to extract relevant content.

Ensuring structured document formatting improves AI comprehension.

Why Not the Other Options?

❌ A. Analyze the data mapping between source fields and Data Cloud object fields.

Incorrect because data mapping issues primarily affect structured CRM data, not PDF-based knowledge sources.

The issue likely stems from retrieval settings, not field mapping.

❌ B. Check that the agent has the PDF file field permission access for the data library.

Incorrect because permission access issues would prevent AI from accessing PDFs entirely rather than causing poor response quality.

AI can still generate responses, even if they are inaccurate, which means the issue lies in retriever settings, not permissions.

Agentforce Specialist References

Salesforce AI Specialist Material details how retriever filters and data sources impact AI-generated answers​.

Salesforce Certification Guide mentions the importance of verifying retriever configurations for accurate knowledge retrieval​.

To ground a sales email on Opportunity Products, Events near the customer, and Tone and voice examples, the Agentforce Specialist should use a prompt-initiated flow. This flow can dynamically fetch the necessary data from related records in Salesforce and ground the generative AI output with contextually accurate information.

Option B (flex template) does not provide the ability to fetch dynamic data from Salesforce records automatically.

Option C (manual insertion) would not allow for the dynamic and automated grounding of data required for custom prompts.

Refer to Salesforce documentation on flows and grounding for more details on integrating data into custom prompt templates.

According to the AgentForce Security and Data Access Configuration Guide, the best practice for ensuring an agent (such as an SDR Agent) can access specific records while maintaining security is to use criteria-based sharing rules. The documentation states: “When an AI Agent needs access to a subset of records (for example, regional leads), create a sharing rule granting access to that agent’s user context based on defined criteria such as region or ownership.”

Option A (assigning the highest-level role) provides excessive access beyond the intended scope, violating the principle of least privilege. Option B (View All permission) gives global object access, which is not secure. Therefore, Option C ensures that the SDR Agent has controlled, region-specific access to lead records.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce Security and Access Guide: “Using Sharing Rules for AI Agent Access Control”

AgentForce Implementation Handbook: “Regional Access Configuration for SDR Agents”

Salesforce Data Security Study Guide

Service Replies: This generative AI feature automates and assists in generating accurate, contextual, and efficient replies for customer service agents. It uses past interactions, case data, and the context of the conversation to provide draft responses, thereby enhancing productivity and reducing response times.

Case Summaries: Summarizes case information but does not assist directly in replying to customer chats.

Case Escalation: Refers to moving cases to higher-level support teams but does not address the need to improve chat response productivity.

Thus, Service Replies is the best feature for this requirement as it directly aligns with improving agent efficiency in replying to chats.

The AgentForce for Service Implementation Guide confirms that when automating customer service and complaint resolution, the correct solution is a Service Agent. The documentation states:

“Service Agents handle customer inquiries, complaints, and issue resolution workflows. They can automate actions such as offering credits, applying upgrades, and escalating severe cases to human support.”

Flex prompt templates are recommended for these scenarios, as they allow contextual control and personalization based on the complaint details.

Option A (Sales Agent) focuses on sales-related tasks like lead nurturing.

Option B (Custom Agent) could work but lacks the pre-built integrations and actions designed for service workflows.

Thus, Option C aligns with Salesforce’s best-practice model for customer issue automation.

References (AgentForce Documents / Study Guide):

AgentForce for Service Guide: “Automating Complaint Resolution”

AgentForce Prompt Template Handbook: “Using Flex Templates in Service Workflows”

AgentForce Study Guide: “Deploying Service Agents for Escalation and Resolution Scenarios”

Universal Containers (UC) aims to streamline customer support by addressing two goals: reducing in-chat typing time for routine answers and minimizing post-chat analysis by auto-suggesting case field values. In Salesforce Agentforce for Service, Einstein Reply Recommendations and Case Classification (Option A) are the ideal combination to achieve this.

Einstein Reply Recommendations: This feature uses AI to suggest pre-formulated responses based on chat context, historical data, and Knowledge articles. By providing agents with ready-to-use replies for common questions, it significantly reduces the time spent typing routine answers, directly addressing UC’s first goal.

Case Classification: This capability leverages AI to analyze case details (e.g., chat transcripts) and suggest values for case fields (e.g., Subject, Priority, Resolution) during or after the interaction. By automating field population, it reduces post-chat analysis time, fulfilling UC’s second goal.

Option B: While "Einstein Reply Recommendations" is correct for the first part, "Case Summaries" generates a summary of the case rather than suggesting specific field values. Summaries are useful for documentation but don’t directly reduce post-chat field entry time.

Option C: "Einstein Service Replies" is not a distinct, documented feature in Agentforce (possibly a distractor for Reply Recommendations), and "Work Summaries" applies more to summarizing work orders or broader tasks, not case field suggestions in a chat context.

Option A: This combination precisely targets both in-chat efficiency (Reply Recommendations) and post-chat automation (Case Classification).

Thus, Option A is the correct answer for UC’s needs.

Salesforce Agentforce Documentation: "Einstein Reply Recommendations" (Salesforce Help: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.einstein_reply_recommendations.htm &type=5)

Salesforce Agentforce Documentation: "Case Classification" (Salesforce Help: https://help.salesforce.com/s/articleView?id=sf.case_classification.htm &type=5)

Trailhead: "Agentforce for Service" (https://trailhead.salesforce.com/content/learn/modules/agentforce-for-service)

The goal of Universal Containers (UC) is to test its Agentforce agents for effectiveness, reliability, and trust before production deployment, with a focus on efficiently handling a large and repeatable number of utterances. Let’s evaluate each option against this requirement and Salesforce’s official Agentforce tools and best practices.

Option A: Leverage the Agent Large Language Model (LLM) UI and test UC's agents with different utterances prior to activating the agent.While Agentforce leverages advanced reasoning capabilities (powered by the Atlas Reasoning Engine), there’s no specific "Agent Large Language Model (LLM) UI" referenced in Salesforce documentation for testing agents. Testing utterances directly within an LLM interface might imply manual experimentation, but this approach lacks scalability and repeatability for a large number of utterances. It’s better suited for ad-hoc testing of individual responses rather than systematic evaluation, making it inefficient for UC’s needs.

Option B: Deploy the agent in a QA sandbox environment and review the Utterance Analysis reports to review effectiveness.Deploying an agent in a QA sandbox is a valid step in the development lifecycle, as sandboxes allow testing in a production-like environment without affecting live data. However, "Utterance Analysis reports" is not a standard term in Agentforce documentation. Salesforce provides tools like Agent Analytics or User Utterances dashboards for post-deployment analysis, but these are more about monitoring live performance than pre-deployment testing. This option doesn’t explicitly address how to efficiently test a large and repeatable number of utterances before deployment, making it less precise for UC’s requirement.

Option C: Create a CSV file with UC's test cases in Agentforce Testing Center using the testing template.The Agentforce Testing Center is a dedicated tool within Agentforce Studio designed specifically for testing autonomous AI agents. According to Salesforce documentation, Testing Center allows users to upload a CSV file containing test cases (e.g., utterances and expected outcomes) using a provided template. This enables the generation and execution of hundreds of synthetic interactions in parallel, simulating real-world scenarios. The tool evaluates how the agent interprets utterances, selects topics, and executes actions, providing detailed results for iteration. This aligns perfectly with UC’s need for efficiency (bulk testing via CSV), repeatability (standardized test cases), and reliability (systematic validation), ensuring the agent is production-ready. This is the recommended approach per official guidelines.

Why Option C is Correct:

The Agentforce Testing Center is explicitly built for pre-deployment validation of agents. It supports bulk testing by allowing users to upload a CSV with utterances, which is then processed by the Atlas Reasoning Engine to assess accuracy and reliability. This method ensures UC can systematically test a large dataset, refine agent instructions or topics based on results, and build trust in the agent’s performance—all before production deployment. This aligns with Salesforce’s emphasis on testing non-deterministic AI systems efficiently, as noted in Agentforce setup documentation and Trailhead modules.

To enable Universal Containers' sales team with automatic post-call visibility into mentions of competitors, products, and custom phrases, the Agentforce Specialist should set up Call Insights. Call Insights analyzes voice and video calls for key phrases, topics, and mentions, providing insights into critical aspects of the conversation. This feature automatically surfaces key details such as competitor mentions, product discussions, and custom phrases specified by the sales team.

Call Summaries provide a general overview of the call but do not specifically highlight keywords or topics.

Call Explorer is a tool for navigating through call data but does not focus on automatic insights.

For more information, refer to Salesforce's Call Insights documentation regarding the analysis of call content and extracting actionable information.